Influenza Vaccination Uptake and Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in Early 2021 at the Start of the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout in Cape Town, South Africa.

Vaccination attitudes among healthcare workers (HCWs) predict their level of vaccination uptake and intention to recommend vaccinations to their patients. To our knowledge, no study has been conducted in South Africa to assess hesitancy toward influenza vaccines among HCWs. We adapted a questionnaire developed and validated by Betsch and colleagues and used it to conduct online and face-to-face interviews among HCWs at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess predictors of influenza vaccine hesitancy. Of 401 participants, 64.5% were women, 49.2% were nurses, and 12.5% were physicians. A total of 54.9% were willing to accept, 20.4% were undecided, and 24.7% intended to refuse influenza vaccination. Participants who were above 25 years of age and physicians were more likely to accept the vaccine. Key predictors of vaccine acceptance were confidence in the effectiveness, consideration of benefits and risks, and willingness to be vaccinated to protect others. Influenza vaccine hesitancy was highest in those who did not trust that influenza vaccines are safe. For future flu seasons, tailored education programs on the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines targeting younger HCWs, could be vital to improving vaccine uptake.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among healthcare workers in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: We assessed willingness to accept vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare workers(HCWs) at the start of South Africa's vaccination roll-out. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among HCWs in Cape Town in March-May 2021 and assessed predictors of vaccination intentions. RESULTS: We recruited 395 participants; 64% women, 49% nurses, and 13% physicians. Of these, 233(59.0%) would accept and 163 (41.0%) were vaccine hesitant i.e. would either refuse or were unsure whether they would accept COVID-19 vaccination. People who did not trust that COVID-19 vaccines are effective were the most hesitant (p = 0.038). Older participants and physicians were more likely to accept vaccination than younger participants (p < 0.01) and other HCWs (p = 0.042) respectively. Other predictors of vaccine acceptance were trust that vaccines are compatible with religion (p < 0.001), consideration of benefits and risks of vaccination (p < 0.001), willingness to be vaccinated to protect others (p < 0.001), and viewing vaccination as a collective action for COVID-19 control (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is high among HCWs in Cape Town. Reducing this would require trust-building interventions, including tailored education.

Co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine for initial treatment of HIV infection and AIDS.

BACKGROUND: UNAIDS estimates that 34 million people are currently living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) worldwide. Currently recommended regimens for initiating HIV treatment consist of either a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). However, there may be some patients for whom NNRTIs and PIs may not be appropriate. This is an update of the review published in the Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2009. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of any fixed-dose combination of three NRTIs (co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine) for initial treatment of HIV infection. SEARCH METHODS: Between December 2010 and July 2011, we used standard Cochrane methods to search electronic databases and conference proceedings with relevant search terms without limits to language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum follow-up time of six months which compared co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine with either PI-based or NNRTI-based therapy among antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients aged at least 13 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently selected eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data; resolving discrepancies by consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), as appropriate, with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and conducted meta-analysis using the random-effects method because of significant statistical heterogeneity (P<0.1). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 potentially eligible RCTs, four of which met our inclusion criteria. The four included RCTs were conducted in the United States of America (USA); USA, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, and Panama; USA and Mexico; and Botswana, respectively. The RCTs compared co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine to treatment based on efavirenz (NNRTI), nelfinavir (PI), atazanavir (PI), and co-formulated lopinavir-ritonavir (PI), respectively. Overall, there was no significant difference in virological suppression between co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine and NNRTI- or PI-based therapy (4 trials; 2247 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.36). However, the results showed significant heterogeneity (I(2)=79%); with co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine inferior to NNRTI (1 trial, 1147 participants: RR 0.35, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.49) but with a trend towards co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine being superior to PI (3 trials, 1110 participants: RR 1.07, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.16; I(2)=0%). We found no significant differences between co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine and either PI or NNRTI on CD4+ cell counts (3 trials, 1687 participants: MD -0.01, 95%CI -0.11 to 0.09; I(2)=0%), severe adverse events (4 trials: RR 1.22, 95%CI 0.78 to 1.92; I(2)=62%) and hypersensitivity reactions (4 trials: RR 4.04, 95% CI 0.41 to 40.02; I(2)=72%). Only two studies involving PIs reported data on the lipid profile. One study found that the mean increase in total cholesterol from baseline to 96 weeks was significantly lower with co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine than with nelfinavir, but there were no differences with triglyceride levels. The second study found the fasting lipid profile to be comparable in both co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine and atazanavir arms at 48 weeks.The significant heterogeneity of effects for most outcomes evaluated was largely due to differences in the control therapy used in the included trials (i.e. NNRTIs or PIs). Using the GRADE approach, we rated the overall quality of the evidence on the relative effects of co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine for initial treatment of HIV infection as moderate. The main reason for downgrading the quality of the evidence was imprecision of the findings. The estimate of the treatment effect for each outcome has wide confidence intervals, which extend from the fixed-dose NRTI combination regimen being appreciably better to the regimen being appreciably worse than PI- or NNRTI-based regimens. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine remains a viable option for initiating antiretroviral therapy, especially in HIV-infected patients with pre-existing hyperlipidaemia. The varied geographical locations of the included trials augment the external validity of these findings. We are moderately confident in our estimate of the treatment effects of the triple NRTI regimen as initial therapy for HIV infection. In the context of the GRADE approach, such moderate quality of evidence implies that the true effects of the regimen are likely to be close to the estimate of effects found in this review; but there is a possibility that they could be substantially different.  Further research should be geared towards defining the subgroup of HIV patients for whom this regimen will be most beneficial.