Attitude towards and perception of individual safety after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among German cancer patients

Immune response of COVID-19 vaccines in solid cancer patients: A meta-analysis

Solid cancer patients, compared to their healthy counterparts, are at a greater risk of contracting and suffering from severe complications and poorer prognosis after COVID-19 infections. They also have different immune responses after doses of COVID-19 vaccination, but limited evidence is available to reveal the effectiveness and help to guide immunization programs for this subpopulation; MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and clinicaltrials.gov were used to search literature. The pooled seroconversion rate was calculated using a random-effects model and reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI); The review includes 66 studies containing serological responses after COVID-19 vaccination in 13,050 solid cancer patients and 8550 healthy controls. The pooled seropositive rates after the first dose in patients with solid cancer and healthy controls are 55.2% (95% CI 45.9%-64.5% N = 18) and 90.2% (95% CI 80.9%-96.6% N = 13), respectively. The seropositive rates after the second dose in patients with solid cancer and healthy controls are 87.6% (95% CI 84.1%-90.7% N = 50) and 98.9% (95% CI 97.6%-99.7% N = 35), respectively. The seropositive rates after the third dose in patients with solid cancer and healthy controls are 91.4% (95% CI 85.4%-95.9% N = 21) and 99.8% (95% CI 98.1%-100.0% N = 4), respectively. Subgroup analysis finds that study sample size, timing of antibody testing, and vaccine type have influence on the results; Seroconversion rates after COVID-19 vaccination are significantly lower in patients with solid malignancies, especially after the first dose, then shrinking gradually after the following two vaccinations, indicating that subsequent doses or a booster dose should be considered for the effectiveness of this subpopulation.

Association of self-leadership and epidemic risk perception on quality of life in post-pandemic mainland of China: a cross-sectional study

Background

Self-leadership has proven to adjust individual psychological states and promote active behaviors to mitigate stress perception and negative lifestyle. This study aims to investigate the relationship between self-leadership, epidemic risk perception, and quality of life among the general public in post-pandemic mainland of China.

Methods

Two online self-reported questionnaire surveys were carried out with 3,098 and 469 people in the Chinese mainland in February 2021 and December 2022, respectively. The univariate analysis, structural equation modeling, and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis were used to analyze the data which was collected by Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire, Perceived Risk of COVID-19 Pandemic Scale and World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Scale.

Results

The Self-leadership was directly, moderately, and positively correlated with quality of life (Standardized path coefficients: 0.383 and 0.491, respectively; p < 0.05), and epidemic risk perception was negatively correlated with quality of life (Standardized path: 0.068 and 0.120, respectively; p < 0.05). The structural equation model for self-leadership, epidemic risk perception, and quality of life had a good fit (CFI = 0.957, 0.939 > 0.9; RSMEA = 0.058, 0.064 < 0.08, respectively) and was consistent across genders, educational levels, and types of occupations (Delata-CFI < 0.01). The core condition for achieving a high quality of life lies in maintaining a low level of self-punishment and a high level of self-cueing or a high level of self-punishment and a low level of self-cueing.

Conclusion

In the post-epidemic era, the public can adjust their attitude toward stress by enhancing their self-leadership skills. Among various self-leadership skills, self-punishment or self-cueing may have the most significant impact on the quality of life.

Longitudinal data on humoral response and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and subvariants BA.4/5 and BQ.1.1 after COVID-19 vaccination in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VOC) and subvariants like BQ.1.1 demonstrate immune evasive potential. Little is known about the efficacy of booster vaccinations regarding this VOC and subvariants in cancer patients. This study is among the first to provide data on neutralizing antibodies (nAb) against BQ.1.1.

METHODS

Cancer patients at our center were prospectively enrolled between 01/2021 and 02/2022. Medical data and blood samples were collected at enrollment and before and after every SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

We analyzed 408 samples from 148 patients (41% female), mainly with solid tumors (85%) on active therapy (92%; 80% chemotherapy). SARS-CoV-2 IgG and nAb titers decreased over time, however, significantly increased following third vaccination (p < 0.0001). NAb (ND50) against Omicron BA.1 was minimal prior and increased significantly after the third vaccination (p < 0.0001). ND50 titers against BQ.1.1 after the third vaccination were significantly lower than against BA.1 and BA.4/5 (p < 0.0001) and undetectable in half of the patients (48%). Factors associated with impaired immune response were hematologic malignancies, B cell depleting therapy and higher age. Choice of vaccine, sex and treatment with chemo-/immunotherapy did not influence antibody response. Patients with breakthrough infections had significantly lower nAb titers after both 6 months (p < 0.001) and the third vaccination (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

We present the first data on nAb against BQ.1.1 following the third vaccination in cancer patients. Our results highlight the threat that new emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants pose to cancer patients and support efforts to apply repeated vaccines. Since a considerable number of patients did not display an adequate immune response, continuing to exhibit caution remains reasonable.

Organization of psychosocial factors associated with worry about acquiring SARS-CoV-2 among women undergoing cancer treatment: an empirical network comparison approach

OBJECTIVES

Pandemic-induced anxiety can have adverse mental and somatic health consequences on cancer patients (CP). This study aimed to (1) explore the intricate relationships between worry related to potential SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 perception, sociodemographic factors, and the perceived effectiveness of lockdown measures and (2) investigate if these relationships differ between cancer patients and individuals without a history of cancer (IWHC).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional quantitative study in France between December 1 and 14, 2020. Network analysis was employed on a sample of 1889 women, including 282 cancer patients and 1607 noncancer individuals.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that CP were 20% more likely to express worry than IWHC. Anxiety is embedded within a complex network involving sociodemographic, cognitive, and emotional factors. The emotional components related to COVID-19 perception were found to play a crucial role. The networks for both groups were observed to be identical.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underscores the heightened vulnerability of cancer patients to pandemic-induced anxiety, emphasizing the crucial role of emotional components related to COVID-19 perception. The observed similarities in the anxiety network between cancer patients and those without a history of cancer suggest that universal approaches might be effective across groups.

IMPLICATIONS

Utilizing the Causal Attitude Network Model, we propose potential methods for managing and reducing individual anxiety levels.

Prevalence and factors of COVID-19 vaccine refusal among solid cancer patients in China: an application of the health belief model

Introduction

It is essential to protect cancer patients from contracting COVID-19 through vaccination. A majority of cancer patients are recommended by international health authorities to take up the vaccines. COVID-19 vaccine refusal among cancer patients during the pandemic period is under-researched. This study investigated factors of vaccine refusal based on the Health Belief Model (HBM).

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among female breast cancer patients, male/female thyroid cancer patients, and gynecological cancer patients in Shantou, China from April to August 2022 (n = 1,115). Multinomial logistic regression analysis adjusted for socio-demographics was conducted to test factors of COVID-19. Adjusted odds ratios of the two models comparing vaccine refusal vs. "vaccine non-refusal" and vaccine refusal vs. ever-vaccination were derived and presented.

Results

Of all the participants, the prevalence of vaccine refusal, "vaccine non-refusal," and ever-vaccination was 25.9, 22.2, and 51.8%, respectively. In both multinomial logistic regression models, significant factors of vaccine refusal included socio-demographics (age, education level, employment status, monthly household income, cancer type, duration since cancer diagnosis, current treatment status) and some vaccine-related HBM (perceived benefits, perceived barriers, cue to action, and self-efficacy). Perceived severity of COVID-19 was significant only in the vaccine refusal vs. ever-vaccination model. In neither model, perceived susceptibility to contract COVID-19 was statistically significant.

Conclusion

About ¼ of the participants expressed vaccine refusal. Interventions are warranted. Future longitudinal studies are needed to verify this study's findings. Pilot interventions should also be launched to test effectiveness of interventions modifying the significant HBM factors found in this study.

Prevalence and Assessment of Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in an Ethnic Minority Oncology Patient Population

BACKGROUND

Complicating the COVID-19 pandemic are the healthcare disparities experienced by ethnic minorities, especially those with comorbidities including cancer. The introduction of COVID-19 vaccines has been instrumental in blunting the morbidity and mortality from the pandemic; however, vaccine hesitancy, particularly among ethnic minorities, has been a major concern. Thus, we sought to evaluate the knowledge and perspectives of COVID-19 and vaccines among our ethnic minority cancer patient population.

METHODS

Following an IRB approved protocol, questionnaires were completed by patients in a predominantly ethnic minority population at a single institution between 1 February and 30 June 2021. Included were any adult cancer patients with either a solid or hematologic malignancy.

RESULTS

Among the 84 patients that were offered the questionnaires, 52 patients responded, with a median age of 63.5 years. Overall, 36% were non-Hispanic Blacks and 30% were Hispanics; 65% were receiving active treatment for their cancer. Seventy-nine percent believed COVID-19 to be dangerous or harmful to them, 61% were concerned about the side effects, yet 65% considered COVID-19 vaccines as safe. Among the seven patients that refused the vaccine, (71%, n = 5) cited side effects and/or (57%, n = 4) believed that the vaccine was not needed. Overall, there was a significantly higher chance of being vaccinated if patients were receiving active cancer treatment, believed COVID-19 was harmful, or that the vaccine was safe, and knew COVID-19 was a virus.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study demonstrates that most ethnic minority cancer patients are receptive to vaccines, with a majority being vaccinated. However, we also discovered various reasons why this group of patients may not want be vaccinated, including concerns about side effects and perception that COVID-19 is not harmful. These findings can help us further understand the complex nature of vaccine hesitancy in ethnic minority cancer patients, and aid in developing future vaccine awareness strategies as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve.

Adherence to Sars-CoV2 vaccination in hematological patients

Background

SARS-CoV2 vaccination efficiently prevents severe COVID-19, although hematological patients, particularly under therapy, respond less well. Besides vaccine efficacy, adherence to vaccination is essential for ensuring adequate protection of this vulnerable population.

Methods

We evaluated the impact of a program aimed at maximizing patient adherence by comparing the rate of SARS-CoV2 vaccination of our hematological patients and a matched sample of the general population.

Results

Vaccination rates were 88.9% among 2,156 patients, aged 65.2 ± 15.8 years (M ± SD, range 19-86 years). Rates differed considerably with age, i.e. 84.2% between 18-64 years and 92.4% above 65 years (p<0.0001), but not with sex. In the general population, rates were 76.3% overall, 73.0% between 18-64 and 86.7% above 65 years, all significantly lower than among patients, overall (Standardized Incidence ratio (SIR) 1.17; 95%CI 1.12-1.22, p<0.0001) as well as among younger (SIR 1.15; 1.07-1.24, p<0.0001) or older (SIR 1.06; 1.00-1.13, p=0.046) people. Vaccination rates increased to 92.2% overall (SIR 1.21; 1.16-1.27, p<0.0001), 88.5% in younger (SIR 1.21; 1.13-1.30, p<0.0001) and 94.8% in older (SIR 1.09; 1.03-1.12, p=0.0043) patients, after excluding those with medical contraindications, and further to 95.6% overall (SIR 1.26; 1.20-1.32, p<0.0001), 93.8% in younger (SIR 1.29; 1.20-1.38, p<0.0001) and 96.9% in older (SIR 1.11; 1.05-1.18, p=0.0004) patients, after excluding those not seen in hematology in 2021.

Conclusions

Vaccination rates were significantly higher in hematological patients compared to the general population regardless of age, sex and municipality. Acceptance of Covid vaccines by hematological patients may be improved by targeted information campaigns carried out by trusted health care professionals.

COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Hesitancy among Breast Cancer Patients after Two Years of Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Background: Patients with cancer show greater susceptibility and vulnerability to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. However, data on the vaccination status among patients with breast cancer and any structured analysis of the factors influencing patients’ decisions regarding vaccines are lacking. Methods: This cross-sectional study on patients with breast cancer in China was conducted from 1 June 2022, to 17 June 2022. Every participant completed an online questionnaire about their vaccination status and any adverse reactions, and a scale based on the Health Belief Model (HBM) to assess the vaccination status of respondents and their willingness to receive following doses or boosters. Results: Among the 1132 participants, 55.2% had received a COVID-19 vaccine. The incidence of adverse events per dose was around 40%. Vaccine hesitancy of 61.9% was observed among patients who had not fully received three doses of vaccine or boosters. The only variable found to be associated with vaccine hesitancy was time since diagnosis (p < 0.05). In the HBM scale, vaccine hesitancy was closely related to a low level of perceived susceptibility, a low level of perceived benefit, a high level of perceived barriers and a low level of agreement with doctors’ advice. Conclusions: For patients with breast cancer, perceived susceptibility, benefits and barriers should be prioritized, and the advice from authoritative doctors is a vital cue to action.