Public's perspective on COVID-19 adenovirus vector vaccines after thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) reports and associated regulatory actions - A cross-sectional study in six EU member states.

OBJECTIVE: In 2021, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) was confirmed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a rare side effect of the COVID-19 adenovirus vector vaccines Vaxzevria® and Jcovden®. This study aimed to describe the public's knowledge of TTS and how it affected the willingness to be vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines in six European countries. METHODS: From June to October of 2022, a multi-country cross-sectional online survey was conducted in Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovenia. The minimum target of participants to be recruited was based on the size of the country's population. The results were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 3794 respondents were included in the analysis; across the six countries, 33.3 %-68.3 % reported being familiar with signs and symptoms of TTS, although 3.1-61.4 % of those were able to identify the symptoms correctly. The reported changes in willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and with other vaccines varied per country. The largest reported change in the willingness to be vaccinated with Vaxzevria® and Jcovden® was observed in Denmark (61.2 %), while the willingness to be vaccinated with other COVID-19 vaccines changed most in Slovenia (30.4 %). The smallest decrease in willingness towards future vaccination against COVID-19 was reported in the Netherlands (20.9 %) contrasting with the largest decrease observed in Latvia (69.1 %). CONCLUSION: Knowledge about TTS seemed to have influenced the public's opinion in Europe resulting in less willingness to be vaccinated with Vaxzevria® and Jcovden®. Willingness for vaccination against COVID-19 with other vaccines and widespread use of vaccines to prevent other diseases also differed and seemed to be determined by the approaches taken by national health authorities when reacting to and communicating about COVID-19 vaccination risks. Further investigation of optimal risk communication strategies is warranted.

COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage and Factors Influencing Vaccine Hesitancy among Patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity in Latvia: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Immunodeficiencies recommends that all patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEI) without contraindications should receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The aim of this study was to investigate the reasons that discourage IEI patients from receiving the recommended vaccination and to assess vaccination coverage among IEI patients in Latvia. METHODS: In this multicenter mixed-methods study, the vaccination status of all patients with IEI within two tertiary centers in Latvia was reviewed using electronic health records. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 IEI patients who did not undergo vaccination, and a thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 341 patients (49.3% female; median age 19.7 years (IQR:17)) were included in the quantitative part. The proportion of fully vaccinated individuals aged ≥ 12 years was 66.8%-70.9% with patients with selective IgA deficiency and 58.8% with other IEI (χ² = 14.12, p < 0.001). The proportion of fully vaccinated individuals aged 5-11 years was 11.1%. Age was associated with vaccination status: younger patients were found to have a significantly lower likelihood of receiving vaccination (U = 8585, p < 0.001). The five main themes identified were as follows: (1) fear and uncertainty; (2) risk and benefit assessment: COVID-19 vaccine-is it worth it? (3) external influences: the dark horse of the decision-making-people around us; (4) individuals against the system; and (5) beliefs about vaccination and COVID-19. Under-representation of certain IEI groups and recall bias are possible limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: While most reasons for hesitancy were similar to those previously described in the general population, disease-specific concerns were also identified.

A mixed-method study on the provision of remote consultations for non-communicable disease patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia: lessons for the future.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the ability of healthcare systems to ensure the continuity of health services for patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The issue of remote consultations has emerged. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, remote consultations were not routinely provided or covered by public health funding in Latvia. This study aimed to describe the dynamics of consultations and the volume of remote consultations provided for patients with particular NCD and explore clinicians' experiences of providing remote consultations during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia. METHODS: A mixed-method study focusing on the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia in Spring 2020 was conducted. Quantitative data from the National Health Services were analysed to assess the dynamics of consultations for patients with selected NCDs. Qualitative data were collected through 34 semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and specialists and were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis. Purposive maximum variation sampling was used for participant selection. RESULTS: During the period with the strongest restrictions of scheduled on-site consultations, a decrease in the total number of consultations was observed for a variety of NCDs. A significant proportion of consultations in this period were provided remotely. GPs provided approximately one-third of cancer-related consultations and almost half of consultations for the other selected conditions remotely. Among specialists, endocrinologists had the highest proportion of remote consultations (up to 72.0%), while urologists had the lowest (16.4%). Thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews revealed five themes: 1) Adjusting in a time of confusion and fear, 2) Remote consultations: safety versus availability, 3) Sacrifice and loss of privacy, 4) Advantages and disadvantages of communication technologies, and 5) Different form of communication and a health literacy challenge. CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia, disruptions to health care services decreased the total number of consultations for patients with NCDs provided by both GPs and specialists. In this period, remote consultations proved to be an important instrument for ensuring the continuity of health care for patients with NCDs, and the necessity to develop a well-designed system for telemedicine in Latvia was highlighted.