Effect of vaccination patterns and vaccination rates on the spread and mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic

Challenges in assessing the immunization status of adults in Germany-lessons from a population-based VACCELERATE survey on polio vaccination

PURPOSE

Considering the re-emergence of poliomyelitis (PM) in non-endemic regions, it becomes apparent that vaccine preventable diseases can rapidly develop epi- or even pandemic potential. Evaluation of the current vaccination status is required to inform patients, health care providers and policy makers about vaccination gaps.

METHODS

Between October 28 2022 and November 23 2022, 5,989 adults from the VACCELEREATE Volunteer Registry completed an electronic case report form on their previous PM vaccine doses including number, types/-valencies and the time of administration based on their vaccination records. A uni-/multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess associations in participant characteristics and immunization status.

RESULTS

Among German volunteers (n = 5,449), complete PM immunization schedule was found in 1,981 (36%) participants. Uncertain immunization, due to unknown previous PM vaccination (n = 313, 6%), number of doses (n = 497, 9%), types/-valencies (n = 1,233, 23%) or incoherent immunization schedule (n = 149, 3%) was found in 40% (n = 2,192). Out of 1,276 (23%) participants who reported an incomplete immunization schedule, 62 (1%) never received any PM vaccine. A total of 5,074 (93%) volunteers reported having been vaccinated at least once and 2,087 (38%) indicated that they received vaccination within the last ten years. Female sex, younger age, as well as availability of first vaccination record were characteristics significantly associated with complete immunization (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Full PM immunization schedule was low and status frequently classified as uncertain due to lack of details on administered doses. There is an obviousneed for improved recording to enable long-term access to detailed vaccination history in the absence of a centralized immunization register.

Comparison of lung ultrasound scoring systems for the prognosis of COVID-19 in the emergency department: An international prospective cohort study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the lung ultrasound (LUS) scores applied to an international cohort of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19, and subsequently admitted with proven disease, could prognosticate clinical outcomes.

Methods

This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of patients who received LUS and were followed for the composite primary outcome of intubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. LUS scores were later applied including two 12-zone protocols ('de Alencar score' and 'CLUE score'), a 12-zone protocol with lung and pleural findings ('Ji score') and an 11-zone protocol ('Tung-Chen score'). The primary analysis comprised logistic regression modelling of the composite primary outcome, with the LUS scores analysed individually as predictor variables.

Results

Between April 2020 to April 2022, 129 patients with COVID-19 had LUS performed according to the protocol and 24 (18.6%) met the composite primary endpoint. No association was seen between the LUS score and the composite primary end point for the de Alencar score [odds ratio (OR) = 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.11; P = 0.29], the CLUE score (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.96-1.10; P = 0.40), the Ji score (OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97-1.07; P = 0.40) or the Tung-Chen score (OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97-1.08).

Discussion

Compared to these earlier studies performed at the start of the pandemic, the negative outcome of our study could reflect the changing scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic, including patient, disease, and system factors. The analysis suggests that the study may have been underpowered to detect a weaker association between a LUS score and the primary outcome.

Conclusion

In an international cohort of adult patients presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19 disease who had LUS performed and were subsequently admitted to hospital, LUS severity scores did not prognosticate the need for invasive ventilation, ICU admission or death.

Does education influence COVID-19 vaccination? A global view

After the recent hard attempts felt on a global scale, notably in the health sector, the steady efforts of scientists have been materialized in maybe one of the most expected findings of the last decades, i.e. the launching of the COVID-19 vaccines. Although it is not our goal to plead for vaccination, as the decision in this regard is a matter of individual choice, we believe it is necessary and enlightening to analyze how one's educational status interferes with COVID-19 vaccination. There are discrepancies between world states vis-à-vis their well-being and their feedback to crises, and from the collection of features that can segregate the states in handling vaccination, in this paper, the spotlight is on education. We are referring to this topic because, generally, researches converge rather on the linkage between economic issues and COVID-19 vaccination, while education levels are less tackled in relation to this. To notice the weight of each type of education (primary, secondary, tertiary) in this process, we employ an assortment of statistical methods, for three clusters: 45 low-income countries (LICs), 72 middle-income countries (MICs) and 53 high-income countries (HICs). The estimates suggest that education counts in the COVID-19 vaccination, the tertiary one having the greatest meaning in accepting it. It is also illustrated that the imprint of education on vaccination fluctuates across the country groups scrutinized, with HICs recording the upper rates. The heterogeneity of COVID-19 vaccination-related behaviors should determine health authorities to treat this subject differently. To expand the COVID-19 vaccines uptake, they should be in an ongoing dialogue with all population categories and, remarkably, with those belonging to vulnerable communities, originated mostly in LICs. Education is imperative for vaccination, and it would ought to be on the schedule of any state, for being assimilated into health strategies and policies.

Comparison of Azvudine and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir and Combined Use in Patients with COVID-19

Purpose

To compare the effectiveness of azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 576 patients with COVID-19, comprising 195 patients without antiviral therapy, 226 patients treated with azvudine, 114 patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and 41 patients were treated with azvudine and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir concurrently. We compared their symptoms, mortality rates, and the length and cost of hospitalization.

Results

The incidence of symptoms was similar in patients treated with azvudine and in those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. However, among patients experiencing weakness, the duration of weakness was significantly shorter in the azvudine group than in the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (P=0.029). Mortality did not differ significantly between the azvudine group and the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir group (18.14% vs.10.53%, P=0.068). Among "severe patients", the mortality rate was markedly lower in patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir than in patients treated with azvudine (16.92% vs.32.17%, P=0.026). In patients with hepatic insufficiency, those treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had substantially lower mortality than those treated with azvudine (15.09% vs.34.25%, P=0.016). In addition, patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had longer hospital stays (P=0.002) and higher hospital costs (P<0.001) than those receiving azvudine. Compared with patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or azvudine alone, patients taking nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and azvudine concurrently had no significant improvement in survival (P>0.05), length of stay (P>0.05), or hospital costs (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Azvudine is recommended for patients with non-severe COVID-19 with weakness. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is recommended for patients with severe COVID-19, to reduce mortality, and it could be the best choice for patients with hepatic insufficiency. The concurrent use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and azvudine in patients with COVID-19 could be not recommended.

Updated beliefs and shaken confidence: evidence from vaccine hesitancy caused by experiencing "COVID arm"

BACKGROUND

Public health depends largely on people's knowledge, beliefs, or behaviors regarding their health and medical treatments. Although works based on the health belief model have shown that public beliefs about medical treatments affect willingness to take the treatments, little is known about the effects of changes in beliefs on attitudes toward treatment. How one's past experiences relate to one's beliefs about a given medical treatment is worth considering.

METHODS

We implemented an online panel survey in February 2021 and March 2022 in Japan before and after COVID-19 vaccines were administered to the public within the country. We exploited delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, namely, "COVID arm", as an exogenous shock to investigate the relationship between past negative experiences and current beliefs about medical treatments or science. "COVID arm" was an unexpected side effect and thus likely caused updated beliefs about the vaccine. Out of the nonprobability sample of 15,000 respondents in the first wave in February 2021, 9,668 respondents also responded to the second wave conducted in March 2022. Outcome variables were whether experiencing "COVID arm" affected the respondents' 1) confidence in vaccine safety, 2) willingness to take the next dose of COVID-19 vaccines, 3) acknowledgment of the importance of vaccination, and 4) confidence in science. We measured the impact of experience with "COVID arm" on changes in the probability that survey respondents would respond affirmatively to questions posed about the issues listed above.

RESULTS

Experiencing "COVID arm" significantly lowered confidence in the safety of vaccination by 4.3 percentage points, which was approximately 6% of the sample mean for the first wave, and lowered the probability of taking a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by 1.5 percentage points. These adverse impacts were observed after conditioning background characteristics and prior confidence in vaccination. Experiencing "COVID arm" affected neither the acknowledged importance of vaccination nor confidence in science in a statistically significant way.

CONCLUSIONS

An unexpected and uncomfortable shock regarding beliefs about a treatment decreases willingness to take the treatment. An appropriate public health policy should account for this effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The survey was preregistered with the American Economic Association's RCT Registry (Fukai et al., 2022).