Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Cross-Sectional Study in Three Communities in the United States and Lebanon.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscores the significance of vaccine hesitancy in shaping vaccination outcomes. Understanding the factors underpinning COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy is crucial for tailoring effective vaccination strategies. This cross-sectional study, conducted in three communities across the United States and Lebanon, employed surveys to assess respondents' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Among the 7196 participants, comprising 6775 from the US and 422 from Lebanon, vaccine hesitancy rates were comparable at 12.2% and 12.8%, respectively. Notably, a substantial proportion of respondents harbored misconceptions, such as attributing the potential to alter DNA (86.4%) or track individuals (92.8%) to COVID-19 vaccines and believing in the virus's artificial origins (81%). US participants had more misconceptions about the COVID-19 vaccine, such as altering DNA or causing infertility. Lebanese participants were more likely to question the origins of the virus and the speed of vaccine development. Additionally, US respondents were less worried about infection, while Lebanese respondents were more indecisive but less likely to outright reject the vaccine. Primary determinants of hesitancy included perceptions that the vaccine poses a greater risk than the infection itself (aOR = 8.7 and 9.4, respectively) and negative recommendations from healthcare providers (aOR = 6.5 and 5.4, respectively). Conversely, positive endorsements from healthcare providers were associated with reduced hesitancy (aOR = 0.02 and 0.4, respectively). Targeting healthcare providers to dispel misinformation and elucidate COVID-19 vaccine risks holds promise for enhancing vaccination uptake.

Knowledge, Perception, Attitudes and Behavior on Influenza Immunization and the Determinants of Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the knowledge of, perception, attitudes, and behaviors toward influenza virus and immunization, and the determinants of vaccination among students, patients, and Healthcare Workers (HCWs) at the American University of Beirut and its affiliated Medical Center. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study between October 2016 and January 2017 utilizing a self-administered questionnaire that was provided to 247 randomly selected adult participants. Data collected included socio-demographic characteristics, prior vaccination against influenza, knowledge, perception, attitudes, and behaviors toward influenza and influenza immunization. A multivariable regression model was used to evaluate for independent associations between the different variables and regular or yearly vaccination as a primary outcome. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 77%. A substantial proportion of respondents (47.4%) had never received the influenza vaccine. Only 10.2% of students, 19.1% of patients, and 35.6% of HCWs reported regular or yearly influenza vaccine uptake. HCWs had the lowest knowledge score about influenza and its vaccine despite high self-reported levels of knowledge. Barriers to vaccinations included lack of information (31%), fear of adverse effects (29%), and a perception of not being at risk (23%). Several factors were independently associated with regular or yearly vaccination uptake including having children (adjusted OR = 3.8; 95% CI 1.2-12.5), a "very good" self-reported level of knowledge (OR = 16.3; 95% CI 1.4-194.2) and being afraid of the consequences of influenza (OR = 0.2; 95% CI 0.1-0.6). CONCLUSION: Adherence rates with regular or yearly vaccination against influenza remain low across all study groups. We were able to identify predictors as well as barriers to vaccination. Future awareness and vaccination campaigns should specifically aim at correcting misconceptions about vaccination, particularly among HCWs, along with addressing the barriers to vaccination. Predictors of vaccination should be integrated in the design of future campaigns.

Consequences of Delayed Chest Closure During Lung Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Delayed chest closure is commonly used for cardiac surgery. However, insufficient data exist to guide its management in immunosuppressed lung transplantation patients, with unclear long-term consequences. METHODS: We performed 769 lung transplantations between January 2009 and January 2016. Of these, 47 (6%) required delayed chest closure because of coagulopathy, respiratory intolerance, and hemodynamic instability. On multivariable analysis, risk factors for delayed chest closure included double-lung transplantation and longer ischemic times. To account for differences between the 2 groups, we performed propensity matching, generating 46 well-matched pairs. RESULTS: Among matched patients with appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis, we found no difference in 30-day prevalence of pneumonia, empyema, Clostridium difficile, bloodstream, and deep wound infections. There was also no difference in 6-month composite infections. However, delayed chest closure patients received more transfusions within 5 days of transplantation (median, 7 vs 3 units; P < .001), had more intubations > 5 days (80% vs 41%, P < .001), had more severe primary graft dysfunction (39% vs 17%, P = .044), had a longer hospital stay (median, 61 vs 25 days; P < .001), and had worse pulmonary function tests 6 years after transplant (P = .019). Fortunately, estimated survival at 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years between delayed and primary chest closure groups was similar (82%, 76%, and 39% vs 84%, 75%, and 50%, respectively; P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: Use of delayed chest closure does not yield more infections or worse long-term survival. However it may be associated with increased in-hospital morbidities and worse long-term pulmonary function.

Real-world use-Isavuconazole at a large academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Isavuconazole use in the real-world setting has not been extensively described. Subgroups of patients with particular prognostic significance, such as previous triazole prophylaxis or treatment and the important subgroup treated empirically for invasive fungal infection, have beforehand been excluded from trials. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine treatment response and safety in these patients at a large US transplant and cancer centre. PATIENTS/METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult inpatients administered ≥3 doses of isavuconazole between June 2015 and October 2017. RESULTS: Ninety-one adults were identified. Six (7%) received primary prophylaxis, 10 (11%) treatment then secondary prophylaxis and 75 (82%) treatment only. Overall treatment response was 62%. Six-week mortality was 24%. Sixty-three per cent of 32 patients treated with isavuconaozle following prophylaxis with another antifungal agent exhibited a treatment response. Among 49 patients switched from treatment with another agent, 53% had a treatment response. Thirty-four patients received isavuconazole empirically, and 65% demonstrated a treatment response. Individuals given isavuconazole prophylaxis developed no breakthrough invasive fungal infections. One patient discontinued isavuconazole due to hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world isavuconazole use appears safe and is associated with treatment responses in varied patients including critically important subgroups previously unreported.

Meropenem-Vaborbactam as Salvage Therapy for Ceftazidime-Avibactam-Resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae Bacteremia and Abscess in a Liver Transplant Recipient.

We report a case of a 24-year-old liver transplant recipient who developed hepatic artery thrombosis and graft failure, which was complicated by subphrenic abscess and persistent Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae bacteremia. Ceftazidime-avibactam treatment led to emergence of resistance, and alternative combination therapy failed due to persistent infection and toxicity. The infection resolved after initiation of meropenem-vaborbactam, which created a bridge to retransplantation. Treatment-emergent ceftazidime-avibactam resistance is increasingly recognized, suggesting a role for meropenem-vaborbactam.

Axillary and rectal thermometry in the newborn: do they agree?

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of body temperature is critical for the assessment of a newborn's general well-being. In nursery settings, the gold standard rectal thermometry has been replaced by the axillary method. However, evidence pertaining to the agreement between axillary and rectal thermometry in the newborn is controversial. In this cross-sectional study, the agreement between axillary and rectal temperature in newborns, as well as the effects of neonatal, maternal and environmental factors on this agreement were investigated. METHODS: The mean difference between axillary and rectal temperatures was compared in stable term and preterm newborns using paired t-test for the means of differences, Pearson correlation coefficient (r), and the Bland-Altman plot. Stepwise multivariate regression assessed predictors of this difference in the overall group and by gestational age categories. RESULTS: The study included 118 newborns with gestational ages ranging from 29 to 41 weeks, median birth weight of 2980 grams (IQR: 2321.3-3363.8). Axillary and rectal temperatures correlated significantly (r = 0.5, p = 0.000) and had similar overall means but differed in 34-36 weeks gestation newborns (p = 0.01). Correlation between both methods increased with advancing gestational age being highest in term newborns (r = 0.6, p = 0.000). Bland-Altman plots revealed good agreement in gestational ages above 29 weeks. The difference between measurements increased with Cesarean delivery (ß = 0.2; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.38), but decreased with advancing chronological age (ß = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.02,-0.01), and with gestational age (ß = -0.05; 95% CI: -0.08,-0.01). CONCLUSION: In clinically stable term and preterm infants, axillary thermometry is as reliable as rectal measurement. Predictors of agreement between the two methods include gestational age, chronological age and mode of delivery. Further studies are needed to confirm this agreement in sick newborns and in extremely premature infants.