Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 43
Filter
1.
Vaccine ; 40(11): 1643-1654, 2022 03 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1713020

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Influenza is a significant threat to public health worldwide. Despite the widespread availability of effective and generally safe vaccines, the acceptance and coverage of influenza vaccines are significantly lower than recommended. Sociodemographic variables are known to be potential predictors of differential influenza vaccine uptake and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to (1) identify how sociodemographic characteristics such as age, sex, gender, and race may influence seasonal influenza vaccine acceptance and coverage; and (2) evaluate the role of these sociodemographic characteristics in differential adverse reactions among vaccinated individuals. METHODS: PubMed was used as the database to search for published literature in three thematic areas related to the seasonal influenza vaccine - vaccine acceptance, adverse reactions, and vaccine coverage. RESULTS: A total of 3249 articles published between 2010 and 2020 were screened and reviewed, of which 39 studies were included in this literature review. By the three thematic areas, 17 studies assessed vaccine acceptance, 8 studies focused on adverse reactions, and 14 examined coverage of the seasonal influenza vaccine. There were also two studies that focused on more than one of the areas of interest. CONCLUSION: Each of the four sociodemographic predictors - age, sex, race, and gender - were found to significantly influence vaccine acceptance, receipt and outcomes in this review.


Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Seasons , Vaccination/adverse effects
2.
Front Public Health ; 9: 756633, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1703359

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This study aims to provide a risk assessment of the adverse reactions related to the COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Moderna, and Pfizer-BioNTech which have been in use in the European Union and the United States between December 2020 and October 2021. Methods: Data from the European Database of Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction (EudraVigilance) and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) from 2020 to October 2021 are analysed. More than 7.8 million adverse reactions of about 1.6 million persons are included. The adverse reactions are classified with the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) categories. COVID-19 vaccine exposures and adverse reactions reported between December 2020 and October 2021 are compared to influenza vaccine exposures and adverse reactions reported between 2020 and 2021. The population-level vaccine exposures to COVID-19 and influenza vaccines comprised about 451 million and 437 million exposures, respectively. Absolute and relative risk estimates are calculated by CTC categories and COVID-19 vaccines for the EU and US populations aged 18 years and older. Results: A higher risk of reporting serious adverse reactions was observed for the COVID-19 vaccines in comparison to the influenza vaccines. Individuals age 65 and older were associated with a higher frequency of death, hospitalisations, and life-threatening reactions than younger individuals (relative risk estimates between 1.49 99% CI [1.44-1.55] and 8.61 99% CI [8.02-9.23]). Outcome onset of serious adverse reactions occurred within the first 7 days after vaccination in about 77.6-89.1% of cases. The largest absolute risks were observed for allergic, constitutional reactions, dermatological, gastrointestinal, neurological reactions, and localised and non-localised pain. The largest relative risks between COVID-19 vs. influenza vaccines were observed for allergic reactions, arrhythmia, general cardiovascular events, coagulation, haemorrhages, gastrointestinal, ocular, sexual organs reactions, and thrombosis. Conclusion: The present study provides an overview of adverse reactions frequently reported to the pharmacovigilance systems following COVID-19 vaccination in the EU and US populations. Despite the limitations of passive reporting systems, these results may inform further clinical research investigating in more detail the pathophysiological mechanisms potentially associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Adolescent , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines , European Union , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Pharmacovigilance , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
3.
Front Immunol ; 13: 782198, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1699887

ABSTRACT

Misunderstanding temporal coincidence of adverse events during mass vaccination and invalid assessment of possible safety concerns have negative effects on immunization programs, leading to low immunization coverage. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the incidence rates of GBS that are temporally associated with viral vaccine administration but might not be attributable to the vaccines. By literature search in Embase and PubMed, we included 48 publications and 2,110,441,600 participants. The pooled incidence rate of GBS was 3.09 per million persons (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.67 to 3.51) within six weeks of vaccination, equally 2.47 per 100,000 person-year (95%CI: 2.14 to 2.81). Subgroup analyses illustrated that the pooled rates were 2.77 per million persons (95%CI: 2.47 to 3.07) for individuals who received the influenza vaccine and 2.44 per million persons (95%CI: 0.97 to 3.91) for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, respectively. Our findings evidence the GBS-associated safety of virus vaccines. We present a reference for the evaluation of post-vaccination GBS rates in mass immunization campaigns, including the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/epidemiology , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Mass Vaccination/adverse effects , Papillomavirus Vaccines/adverse effects , Alphapapillomavirus/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Papillomavirus Infections/prevention & control , Papillomavirus Vaccines/immunology , Population Surveillance , SARS-CoV-2/immunology
4.
J Nippon Med Sch ; 88(6): 524-532, 2021 Dec 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581928

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Behavioral changes among Japanese, along with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, may affect the seasonal influenza epidemic in Japan and change influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE). METHODS: This single-center, test-negative case-control (TNCC) study estimated influenza VE in children for the first influenza season (2019/20) to overlap the COVID-19 epidemic in. Effects of prior influenza infection and vaccination in children were assessed for the 2019-2020 season. RESULTS: Among 386 children, adjusted VE was significant for influenza A/H1N1 (45.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-69.7) and influenza B (66.7%; 95% CI: 35.9-82.7). Among patients aged 0-6 years, adjusted VE was significant for influenza A (total: A/H1N1+A/H3N2) (65.0%; 95% CI: 22.2-84.3), influenza A/H1N1 (64.8%; 95% CI: 16.9-85.1) and influenza B (87.4%; 95% CI: 50.5-96.8). No VE was observed in patients aged 7-15 years. Administration of two vaccine doses tended to decrease incidences of influenza A (total) and influenza A/H1N1 in patients aged 0-6 years. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of influenza B infection in patients, who had influenza during the previous season, were significantly lower among all participants (0.29; 95% CI: 0.11-0.78) and patients aged 7-15 years (0.34; 95% CI: 0.12-0.94). The adjusted ORs of influenza infections were not significant in patients vaccinated during the previous season. CONCLUSIONS: TNCC-based estimates of influenza VE were consistent despite the overlapping COVID-19 epidemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Child , Female , Humans , Infant , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Seasons , Vaccination
5.
Acta Neurol Scand ; 145(4): 393-398, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1583695

ABSTRACT

Guillain-Barre syndrome following COVID-19 vaccines (GBSfCV19v) is a reported adverse effect that remains unclear. We present a structured review based on two case reports of GBSfCV19v, a systematic review, and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) analysis to estimate the risk and describe the clinical characteristics (CC) of these events. We've searched on MEDLINE and Embase, from the inception to May 20, 2021, using the keywords: "Guillain barre syndrome" and cross-referenced with "covid-19 vaccines." We estimated the risk of GBSfCV19v, comparing it with the risk of GBS following the influenza vaccine (GBSfIv), considering the VAERS sensitivity. The clinical characteristics included: age, sex, comorbidities, type of vaccine, administered dose, clinical onset, deaths, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and electromyography (EMG) pattern. We found 43 cases, considering the risk of GBSfCV19v lower than GBSfIv (160-320 cases). The patients had a mean age of 54 years and 23 (56%) were male. The types of vaccines used: Pfizer (22), Moderna (9), AstraZeneca (3), Janssen (3), and Johnson & Johnson (1). 24 cases of GBS occurred after the first dose, with clinical onset of 7 days. CSF albuminocytological dissociation was reported in 7 patients, and EMG revealed a predominant demyelinating pattern. GBSfCV19v risk appears to be lower than what was expected from other respiratory virus vaccines. Most cases of GBS were middle-aged males within a week following the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, showing a typical demyelinating neuropathy with albuminocytological dissociation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Guillain-Barre Syndrome , Influenza Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/epidemiology , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/etiology , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 17(12): 4964-4970, 2021 12 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1565873

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to ravage the world. People living with HIV (PLHIV) are one of the most vulnerable groups. This study aims to identify the factors associated with the uptake and adverse reactions of COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: We recruited PLHIV in China by convenience sampling between 7 and 23 February 2021. Participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire. Chi-squared test and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess factors associated with vaccine uptake. RESULTS: A total of 527 vaccinated and 1091 unvaccinated PLHIV were recruited. Individuals who had a higher education, engaged in occupations with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection, received influenza or pneumonia vaccine in the past 3 years (5.40, 3.36-8.77), believed in the effectiveness of vaccines (3.01, 2.20-4.12), and received media information regarding COVID-19 vaccine (2.23, 1.61-3.11), were more likely to be vaccinated. Concerning about adverse reactions (0.31, 0.22-0.44), negative impact on the progression of HIV/AIDS (0.36, 0.26-0.50) or antiretroviral therapy (ART) (0.61, 0.44-0.85), disclosure of HIV infection status (0.69, 0.49-0.96), comorbidities (0.33, 0.22-0.47), being unmarried (0.43, 0.28-0.66) and older age were negatively associated with vaccination. Of the 527 vaccinated PLHIV, 155 (29.4%) PLHIV reported adverse reactions, with pain at the injection site being the most common (18.2%). CONCLUSIONS: PLHIV, who are concerned about adverse reactions, negative impact on ART outcome and disclosure of HIV infection status, were less likely to adopt COVID-19 vaccination. To increase vaccination coverage among PLHIV, health-care professionals should emphasize the benefits and necessity of vaccination and provide consultancy regarding adverse reactions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Influenza Vaccines , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Case-Control Studies , China/epidemiology , HIV Infections/complications , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/adverse effects
9.
Drug Saf ; 44(12): 1375-1390, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1544606

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Seasonal influenza infects millions annually in Europe. Annual influenza vaccination is the most effective measure to reduce the risk of infection and its complications, especially among young children and older adults. OBJECTIVE: We assessed adverse event (AE) frequency after receiving GSK's inactivated quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (IIV4). METHODS: A passive enhanced safety surveillance study was conducted in Belgium, Germany, and Spain. Adults who had received GSK's IIV4 or the parent(s)/guardian(s)/legally acceptable representative(s) of children given the vaccine were invited to complete an adverse drug reaction (ADR) card to document AEs experienced within 7 days post vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 1082 participants (51.6% females) received GSK's IIV4, including 115 children < 9 years of age who received two doses. The ADR card return rate was 97.0% (n = 1049) after dose 1 and 100% (n = 115) after dose 2. All participants in Belgium and Germany were adults. In Spain, 71.2% were children. After dose 1, 39.2% reported one or more AE. The most frequent AEs category was "general disorders and administration site conditions" (GDASC). AEs were most frequently reported in adults aged 18-65 years (47.2%), followed by children aged 6 months-17 years (38.1%), and adults aged > 65 years (31.6%). After dose 2, 7.8% reported one or more AE, and GDASC was again the most frequent AE category. There were no serious AEs related to GSK's IIV4 within 7 days post vaccination. CONCLUSION: No serious AEs related to GSK's IIV4 within 7 days post vaccination were reported. This study supports the favourable risk-benefit safety profile of GSK's IIV4.


Seasonal influenza infects millions annually in Europe, especially young children and older adults. Annual influenza vaccination is the most effective measure to reduce the risk of infection and its complications. As the wild influenza virus strains change every year, the composition of the influenza vaccine changes as well. Since the vaccine is produced in the same way over the years, extensive safety studies are no longer required by regulatory authorities. Instead, monitoring of any unwanted medical incidents (adverse events) after vaccination is required. For the 2019/2020 season, we monitored the adverse events reported by a representative sample of people in Belgium, Germany, and Spain within 7 days after receiving GSK's seasonal influenza vaccine.Of the 1082 people who received the first dose of the vaccine, 39% reported at least one adverse event, such as pain and swelling at the injection site, tiredness, fever, headache, or dizziness. A total of 115 children under 9 years of age received two doses 4 weeks apart. After their second dose, few of these children (8%) reported adverse events. The most frequent adverse events were fever, swelling and pain at the injection site, runny nose, or irritability. No serious adverse events were reported after either the first or second dose.No serious adverse events related to GSK's seasonal influenza vaccine within the 7 days after vaccination were reported. This study supports the favourable risk­benefit safety profile of GSK's seasonal influenza vaccine.


Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Aged , Belgium/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/epidemiology , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Male , Seasons , Spain/epidemiology , Vaccines, Inactivated/adverse effects
10.
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) ; 62(2): 461-467.e1, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531527

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: For a vaccine to be successful, communities must perceive it as important, safe, effective, and necessary. However, there are many barriers and hesitancies to vaccination. Underserved patient populations may face additional challenges related to access and cost. Because community pharmacists improve vaccine access and increase vaccination rates, it is beneficial for pharmacists to understand perceptions and barriers to vaccinations in their community to increase vaccine confidence. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess and compare barriers and perceptions of the annual influenza to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine for underserved patients of a charitable pharmacy. METHODS: Patients who qualified to receive medications from an outpatient charitable pharmacy took an electronic survey when receiving medications. The survey incorporated questions developed by the World Health Organization's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Vaccine Hesitancy on a 5-point Likert scale. Questions about the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines mirrored one another. Demographic data such as age, race, sex, and education level were also collected. RESULTS: Of the 189 patients surveyed at the charitable pharmacy, 71.7% were 55 years old and older and 58.9% were female. Of note, 78% and 77% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines, respectively, were important for the health of others in their community. Adverse effects and the cost of the COVID-19 vaccine were noted to be statistically significantly more of a concern with the COVID-19 vaccine than that of the influenza vaccine (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Ensuring equitable vaccine access, promoting the COVID-19 vaccine as free, and eliciting and addressing individual persons' concerns related to vaccine safety and adverse effects are all important ways pharmacists and other health care providers and community stakeholders can help promote vaccine confidence within the populations they serve.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza Vaccines/therapeutic use , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vulnerable Populations
11.
J Fam Pract ; 70(8): 399-402, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1534584

ABSTRACT

Give the vaccine by the end of October. The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines can be co-administered with influenza vaccines, but reactogenicity is possible.


Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza Vaccines/pharmacology , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , United States
13.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0260213, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526695

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Influenza is a major concern in hospitals, including the emergency department (ED), mainly because of a high risk for ED personnel to acquire and transmit the disease. Although influenza vaccination is recommended for health care workers, vaccination coverage is low. METHODS: This survey was conducted in the 2016/2017 and 2020/2021 influenza seasons. Questionnaires were sent to ED personnel in 12 hospitals in Bavaria, South-Eastern Germany. The response rates were 62% and 38% in 2016/2017 and 2020/2021, respectively. Data were compared between the two seasons as well as between vaccinated and not vaccinated respondents in 2020/2021. RESULTS: Significantly more ED personnel reported having been vaccinated in the 2020/2021 season. Factors associated with vaccination coverage (or the intention to get vaccinated) were profession (physician / medical student), having been vaccinated at least twice, the availability of an influenza vaccination on site (in the ED) as well as the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, significant differences in the assessment and evaluation of influenza, its vaccination side effects and ethical aspects were found between vaccinated and not vaccinated ED personnel in 2020/2021. Unvaccinated respondents estimated higher frequencies of almost all potential vaccination side effects, were less likely to accept lay-offs if employees would not come to work during an influenza pandemic and more likely to agree that work attendance should be an employee´s decision. Vaccinated participants instead, rather agreed that vaccination should be mandatory and were less likely to consider job changes in case of a mandatory vaccination policy. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic might have contributed to a higher influenza vaccination rate among ED workers. Vaccination on site and interventions targeting the perception of influenza vaccination and its side effects may be most promising to increase the vaccination coverage among ED personnel.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Female , Germany , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged
14.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(2): 167-179, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1517541

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. We therefore aimed to report the results of a substudy within a phase 3 UK trial, by evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 when co-administered with licensed seasonal influenza vaccines. METHODS: We did a planned exploratory substudy as part of the randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) by co-administrating the influenza vaccine at four study hospitals in the UK. Approximately, the first 400 participants meeting the main study entry criteria-with no contraindications to influenza vaccination-were invited to join the substudy. Participants of the main study were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of either NVX-CoV2373 (5 µg) or placebo (normal saline) 21 days apart; participants enrolled into the substudy were co-vaccinated with a single (0·5 mL) intramuscular, age-appropriate (quadrivalent influenza cell-based vaccine [Flucelvax Quadrivalent; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those aged 18-64 years and adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine [Fluad; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those ≥65 years), licensed, influenza vaccine on the opposite deltoid to that of the first study vaccine dose or placebo. The influenza vaccine was administered in an open-label manner and at the same time as the first study injection. Reactogenicity was evaluated via an electronic diary for 7 days after vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events, medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was assessed with influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein IgG assays. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed in participants who were seronegative at baseline, received both doses of study vaccine or placebo, had no major protocol deviations affecting the primary endpoint, and had no confirmed cases of symptomatic COVID-19 from the first dose until 6 days after the second dose (per-protocol efficacy population). Immunogenicity was assessed in participants who received scheduled two doses of study vaccine, had a baseline sample and at least one post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol violations before unmasking (per-protocol immunogenicity population). Reactogenicity was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo and had data collected for reactogenicity events. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. Comparisons were made between participants of the substudy and the main study (who were not co-vaccinated for influenza). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04583995. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2020, and Nov 28, 2020, a total of 15 187 participants were randomised into the main phase 3 trial, of whom 15 139 received treatment (7569 received dose one of NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received dose one of placebo). 431 participants were co-vaccinated with a seasonal influenza vaccine in the substudy (217 received NVX-CoV2373 plus the influenza vaccine and 214 received placebo plus the influenza vaccine). In general, the substudy participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than those in the main study. Reactogenicity events were more common in the co-administration group than in the NVX-CoV2373 alone group: tenderness (113 [64·9%] of 174 vs 592 [53·3%] of 1111) or pain (69 [39·7%] vs 325 [29·3%]) at injection site, fatigue (48 [27·7%] vs 215 [19·4%]), and muscle pain (49 [28·3%] vs 237 [21·4%]). Incidences of unsolicited adverse events, treatment-related medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events were low and balanced between the co-administration group and the NVX-CoV2373 alone group. No episodes of anaphylaxis or deaths were reported within the substudy. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response although a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. NVX-CoV2373 vaccine efficacy in the substudy (ie, participants aged 18 to <65 years) was 87·5% (95% CI -0·2 to 98·4) and in the main study was 89·8% (95% CI 79·7-95·5). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this substudy is the first to show the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy profile of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines. Our results suggest concomitant vaccination might be a viable immunisation strategy. FUNDING: Novavax.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Seasons , Young Adult
15.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 18(1): 1-9, 2022 12 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506743

ABSTRACT

Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine among health-care workers (HCWs) is crucial for controlling the pandemic and ensuring HCW and patient safety. Information on the acceptance of different COVID-19 vaccines is lacking. Despite the United Arab Emirates (UAE) having vaccinated most of its population, vaccine acceptance still raises concerns. This study explores COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, vaccine choice, and associated factors among HCWs in the UAE. An online national cross-sectional study was conducted among 517 HCWs. Acceptance and choice of COVID-19 vaccines were assessed, and logistic regression analysis identified predictors for vaccine acceptance. More than half (58%) of HCWs were willing to take the vaccine and give it to their family. Reasons for taking the vaccine were concerns for families contracting COVID-19 (67%) and social responsibility (64%). Reasons for refusals included concerns with side-effects (61%). Most HCWs knew of the Pfizer (79%) and Sinopharm (57%) vaccines; however, acceptance was higher for Pfizer (35%) and AstraZeneca (21%) vaccines. Being male and being influenza vaccinated predicted willingness to take the vaccine (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI:1.34-4.08; p ≤ 0.001) and (aOR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.29-3.51; p ≤ 0.001), respectively. HCWs who expressed concerns with inadequate safety data were less likely to take the vaccine (aOR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.10-0.30; p ≤ 0.001). Additionally, side effects, perception of risk, and level of trust of company and country of manufacture predicted acceptance and choice of vaccines. Effective vaccine policy campaigns to improve acceptance should target HCW's knowledge and awareness of perceived risks of COVID-19, safety data, social responsibility, and individual preferences for vaccine choice.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Male , United Arab Emirates/epidemiology , Vaccination
18.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e048109, 2021 06 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1462955

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We integrated an established participant-centred active vaccine safety surveillance system with a cloud-based pharmacy immunisation-recording program in order to measure adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) reported via the new surveillance system in pharmacies, compared with AEFI reported via an existing surveillance system in non-pharmacy sites (general practice and other clinics). DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Individuals >10 years receiving influenza immunisations from 22 pharmacies and 90 non-pharmacy (general practice and other clinic) sites between March and October 2020 in Western Australia. Active vaccine safety surveillance was conducted using short message service and smartphone technology, via an opt-out system. OUTCOME MEASURES: Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the primary outcome: differences in proportions of AEFI between participants immunised in pharmacies compared with non-pharmacy sites, adjusting for confounders of age, sex and influenza vaccine brand. A subgroup analysis of participants over 65 years was also performed. RESULTS: Of 101 440 participants (6992 from pharmacies; 94 448 from non-pharmacy sites), 77 498 (76.4%) responded; 96.1% (n=74 448) within 24 hours. Overall, 4.8% (n=247) pharmacy participants reported any AEFI, compared with 6% (n=4356) non-pharmacy participants (adjusted OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.99; p=0.039). Similar proportions of AEFIs were reported in pharmacy (5.8%; n=31) and non-pharmacy participants (6; n=1617) aged over 65 years (adjusted OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.35; p=0.725). The most common AEFIs in pharmacy were: pain (2%; n=104), tiredness (1.9%; n=95) and headache (1.7%; n=88); and in non-pharmacy sites: pain (2.3%; n=1660), tiredness (1.9%; n=1362) and swelling (1.5%; n=1121). CONCLUSIONS: High and rapid response rates demonstrate good participant engagement with active surveillance in both pharmacy and non-pharmacy participants. Significantly fewer AEFIs reported after pharmacist immunisations compared with non-pharmacy immunisations, with no difference in older adults, may suggest different cohorts attend pharmacy versus non-pharmacy immunisers. The integrated pharmacy system is rapidly scalable across Australia with global potential.


Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Pharmacies , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems , Aged , Australia/epidemiology , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Seasons , Vaccination , Western Australia/epidemiology
19.
Pediatrics ; 148(4)2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398985

ABSTRACT

This technical report accompanies the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the routine use of the influenza vaccine and antiviral medications in the prevention and treatment of influenza in children during the 2021-2022 season. Influenza vaccination is an important intervention to protect vulnerable populations and reduce the burden of respiratory illnesses during circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which is expected to continue during this influenza season. In this technical report, we summarize recent influenza seasons, morbidity and mortality in children, vaccine effectiveness, vaccination coverage, and detailed guidance on storage, administration, and implementation. We also provide background on inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccine recommendations, vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding, diagnostic testing, and antiviral medications for treatment and chemoprophylaxis.


Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Breast Feeding , Child , Contraindications, Drug , Drug Resistance, Viral , Drug Storage , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/mortality , Mass Vaccination , Risk Factors , United States/epidemiology , Vaccines, Attenuated/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Attenuated/adverse effects , Vaccines, Inactivated/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Inactivated/adverse effects
20.
Int J Infect Dis ; 111: 310-312, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1385719

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Facial nerve palsy (or Bell's palsy) has occasionally been reported following the administration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). Our study investigated such cases using a large self-reporting database from the USA (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]). METHODS: A disproportionality analysis, adjusted for age and sex, was conducted for VAERS reports from individuals who were vaccinated at the age of 18 years or over, between January 2010 and April 2021. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that the adverse events following immunization (AEFI) of facial nerve palsy, after administration of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, was significantly highly reported, both for BNT162b2 (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.65-2.06) and mRNA-1273 (ROR 1.54; 95% CI 1.39-1.70). These levels were comparable to that following influenza vaccination reported before the COVID-19 pandemic (ROR 2.04; 95% CI 1.76-2.36). CONCLUSIONS: Our pharmacovigilance study results suggest that the incidence of facial nerve palsy as a non-serious AEFI may be lower than, or equivalent to, that for influenza vaccines. This information might be of value in the context of promoting worldwide vaccination, but needs to be validated in future observational studies.


Subject(s)
Bell Palsy , COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Adolescent , Adult , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems , Bell Palsy/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Facial Nerve , Humans , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Pandemics , Paralysis , RNA, Messenger/genetics , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL