Making a COVID-19 vaccine that works for everyone: ensuring equity and inclusivity in clinical trials

Understanding the determinants of vaccine hesitancy in the United States: A comparison of social surveys and social media

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted governments worldwide to implement a range of containment measures, including mass gathering restrictions, social distancing, and school closures. Despite these efforts, vaccines continue to be the safest and most effective means of combating such viruses. Yet, vaccine hesitancy persists, posing a significant public health concern, particularly with the emergence of new COVID-19 variants. To effectively address this issue, timely data is crucial for understanding the various factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy. While previous research has largely relied on traditional surveys for this information, recent sources of data, such as social media, have gained attention. However, the potential of social media data as a reliable proxy for information on population hesitancy, especially when compared with survey data, remains underexplored. This paper aims to bridge this gap. Our approach uses social, demographic, and economic data to predict vaccine hesitancy levels in the ten most populous US metropolitan areas. We employ machine learning algorithms to compare a set of baseline models that contain only these variables with models that incorporate survey data and social media data separately. Our results show that XGBoost algorithm consistently outperforms Random Forest and Linear Regression, with marginal differences between Random Forest and XGBoost. This was especially the case with models that incorporate survey or social media data, thus highlighting the promise of the latter data as a complementary information source. Results also reveal variations in influential variables across the five hesitancy classes, such as age, ethnicity, occupation, and political inclination. Further, the application of models to different MSAs yields mixed results, emphasizing the uniqueness of communities and the need for complementary data approaches. In summary, this study underscores social media data's potential for understanding vaccine hesitancy, emphasizes the importance of tailoring interventions to specific communities, and suggests the value of combining different data sources.

Vietnamese Americans' level of trust in sources of information and willingness to participate in COVID-19 clinical trials

The survey investigates COVID-19 information source trust levels and Vietnamese Americans' willingness to participate in clinical trials. An analysis of 212 completed surveys revealed that trust in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trial information from university hospitals and drug companies was associated with willingness to participate in clinical trials. Trust in COVID-19 information from federal governments and state governments was also associated with willingness to participate in clinical trials. However, trust in local health facilities was linked to trial participation reluctance. The results suggest that Vietnamese Americans' participation in clinical trials can be increased by identifying and using trusted sources of information.

Global Disparities in Access to Vaccine Clinical Trials: A Review of the Literature

Vaccines are an effective tool to reduce the disease burden from infectious diseases on a population, infrastructural, and individual level. Before vaccines can be administered to populations at large, they must go through rigorous testing in the form of clinical trials. While vaccine trials can be used to assess the efficacy of interventions on a local populace as well as target local endemic diseases, most clinical trials are sponsored and conducted by companies in high-income countries (HICs). This can lead to vaccines that are not optimized for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and that often neglect to address diseases specific to the local population. This narrative review aims to explore the factors leading to discrepancies in the execution of and access to vaccine trials between HICs and LMICs, thus guiding future efforts in confronting them. This review was written using the literature sourced from the PubMed database and supplemented with articles from Google Scholar along with grey literature. Several themes are highlighted including poorly defined regulatory and ethical guidelines, staff shortages, lack of research infrastructure, and logistical barriers. We discuss how these challenges have affected vaccine development in various capacities through case examples of SARS-CoV-2, poliovirus, and malaria. Many challenges remain in equitable vaccine clinical trial development and implementation. Facilitating the implementation of locally sponsored vaccine clinical trials in LMICs may be one avenue to address these challenges. In doing so, LMICs can become active stakeholders in the health of their citizens by addressing endemic diseases, tailoring vaccine specifications based on local needs, and implementing wide-scale vaccine access and delivery.

Prioritizing COVID-19 vaccine allocation in resource poor settings: Towards an Artificial Intelligence-enabled and Geospatial-assisted decision support framework

OBJECTIVES

To propose a novel framework for COVID-19 vaccine allocation based on three components of Vulnerability, Vaccination, and Values (3Vs).

METHODS

A combination of geospatial data analysis and artificial intelligence methods for evaluating vulnerability factors at the local level and allocate vaccines according to a dynamic mechanism for updating vulnerability and vaccine uptake.

RESULTS

A novel approach is introduced including (I) Vulnerability data collection (including country-specific data on demographic, socioeconomic, epidemiological, healthcare, and environmental factors), (II) Vaccination prioritization through estimation of a unique Vulnerability Index composed of a range of factors selected and weighed through an Artificial Intelligence (AI-enabled) expert elicitation survey and scientific literature screening, and (III) Values consideration by identification of the most effective GIS-assisted allocation of vaccines at the local level, considering context-specific constraints and objectives.

CONCLUSIONS

We showcase the performance of the 3Vs strategy by comparing it to the actual vaccination rollout in Kenya. We show that under the current strategy, socially vulnerable individuals comprise only 45% of all vaccinated people in Kenya while if the 3Vs strategy was implemented, this group would be the first to receive vaccines.

Perceptions of COVID-19 Vaccine, Racism, and Social Vulnerability: An Examination among East Asian Americans, Southeast Asian Americans, South Asian Americans, and Others

As COVID-19 vaccines are readily available and most U.S. adults who are enthusiastic about the vaccine have received it, motivating those who have not been vaccinated to accept it has become a challenge. The purpose of this study was to understand the mechanisms behind COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Asian American ethnic groups, including how sociodemographic characteristics and racism predict COVID-19 and vaccine perceptions. The study also examined associations between social vulnerability and COVID-19 and vaccine perceptions. Social vulnerability is defined as the degree to which a community is able to prepare and respond to a natural or man-made disaster. This cross-sectional study used community-based survey data collected from April to September 2021. Study measures included demographics, perceptions of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, and racism-related experiences. The results showed that, compared to Non-Asians, East Asians reported that they had significantly more challenges accessing COVID-19 vaccines, and South Asians reported significantly higher safety concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. Our study also found that racism experience mediates the association between race/ethnicity and safety concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. Three Asian subgroups (East Asians, South Asians, and Southeast Asians) experienced more racism (compared to Non-Asians), and more experience of racism was related to greater safety concerns. Geographical Information System (GIS) maps revealed that residents of lower social vulnerability index (SVI) areas reported fewer unfairness perceptions and that higher SVI areas had lower vaccine accessibility and trust in public health agencies. Our study advances the understanding of racism, social vulnerability, and COVID-19 vaccine-related perceptions among Asian Americans. The findings have implications for policymakers and community leaders with respect to tailoring COVID-19 program efforts for socially vulnerable populations and Asian American groups that experience greater challenges regarding vaccine safety concerns and accessibility.

Cochleovestibular findings linked to COVID-19: A scoping review for clinical care planning in South Africa

Background

On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared an outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to be a global health emergency. Research has focused on the impact and response to life-threatening symptoms of COVID-19 across the lifespan; however, there is a need to investigate the effects of COVID-19 on the cochleovestibular system, as viral infections are known to impact this system. This is particularly important for contexts where resources are limited and prioritisation of resources requires strong risk versus benefit evaluations.

Objective

Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to investigate published evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on the cochleovestibular system across the lifespan in order to allow for strategic clinical care planning in South Africa, where capacity versus demand challenges exist.

Methods

Electronic bibliographic databases such as CINAHL, EBSCOHost, MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus and ScienceDirect were searched for peer-reviewed publications between January 2020 and January 2022. These had to be published in English and related to the impact of COVID-19 on the cochleovestibular system, where the question was: ‘what evidence has been published on the impact of COVID-19 on the cochleovestibular system?’ Review selection and characterisation was performed by the researcher with an independent review by a colleague using pretested forms.

Results

Of a total of 24 studies that met the inclusion criteria, the current scoping review revealed limited conclusive published evidence linking COVID-19 to permanent hearing function symptoms. Current evidence supports the possibility of COVID-19, similar to other viral infections in adults, impacting the cochleovestibular system and causing tinnitus, vertigo and sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL), with the symptoms being generally temporary and resolving either partially or completely following therapy with steroids, with very inconclusive findings in the paediatric population.

Conclusion

These findings raise global implications for properly designed studies, which include longitudinal follow-up of cases across the lifespan, examining this link with some focus on establishing the pathophysiologic mechanisms at play as well. In the meanwhile, current findings raise the value of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for all patients presenting with unexplained cochleovestibular symptoms during the pandemic, as these may be the only presenting symptoms indicating COVID-19, thus requiring careful treatment and management.

Quantifying Diversity and Representation in Pivotal Trials Leading to Marketing Authorization in Europe

BACKGROUND

Following up on a study from 2019, Tufts CSDD collected and analyzed data on demographic disparities and representation in pivotal trials supporting the marketing authorization of novel drugs and biologics approved in Europe between 2007 and 2019.

METHODS

Data were collected from products' EPAR, the EUDRACT database, and other publicly available sources, and compared to indication-specific demographic data or a census estimate. In total, data were collected on 446 drugs and 943 pivotal trials.

RESULTS

Results indicated that gender demographic data were only reported for 80.7% of pivotal trials, and that racial and ethnicity demographic data were reported less often (64.1% and 29.9% of pivotal trials, respectively). Results also indicated that non-white racial identities were under-represented by more than 20% in nearly half or more of pivotal trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines encouraging the reporting of patient demographic data are insufficient and availability of the data is problematic. The available data suggest that under-representation in pivotal trials is widespread.

University patenting and licensing practices in the United Kingdom during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

Universities' decisions during technology transfer may affect affordability, accessibility, and availability of COVID-19 health technologies downstream. We investigated measures taken by the top 35 publicly funded UK universities to ensure global equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies between January and end of October 2020. We sent Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests and analysed universities' websites, to (i) assess institutional strategies on the patenting and licensing of COVID-19-related health technologies, (ii) identify all COVID-19-related health technologies licensed or patented and (iii) record whether universities engaged with the Open COVID pledge, COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), or Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) COVID-19 licensing guidelines during the time period assessed. Except for the Universities of Oxford and Edinburgh, UK universities did not update their institutional strategies during the first year of the pandemic. Nine universities licensed 22 COVID-19 health technologies. Imperial College London disclosed ten patents relevant to COVID-19. No UK universities participated in the Open COVID Pledge or C-TAP, but discussions were ongoing in autumn 2020. The University of Bristol endorsed the AUTM guidelines. Despite important COVID-19 health technologies being developed by UK universities, our findings suggest minimal engagement with measures that may promote equitable access downstream. We suggest universities review their technology transfer policies and implement global equitable access strategies for COVID-19 health technologies. We furthermore propose that public and charitable funders can play a larger role in encouraging universities to adopt such practices by making access and transparency clauses a mandatory condition for receiving public funds for research.

COVID-19 Vaccination: The Mainspring of Challenges and the Seed of Remonstrance

As of March 2020, the time when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) became a pandemic, our existence has been threatened and the lives of millions have been claimed. With this ongoing global issue, vaccines are considered of paramount importance in curtailing the outbreak and probably a prime gamble to bring us back to 'ordinary life'. To date, more than 200 vaccine candidates have been produced, many of which were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use, with the research and discovery phase of their production process passed over. Capering such a chief practice in COVID-19 vaccine development, and manufacturing vaccines at an unprecedented speed brought many challenges into play and raised COVID-19 vaccine remonstrance. In this review, we highlight relevant challenges to global COVID-19 vaccine development, dissemination, and deployment, particularly at the level of large-scale production and distribution. We also delineate public perception on COVID-19 vaccination and outline the main facets affecting people's willingness to get vaccinated.

Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

OBJECTIVES

The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D.

RESULTS

We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search.

CONCLUSION

Our study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%-99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.

The Vaccination Process against the COVID-19: Opportunities, Problems and mHealth Support

The vaccination against the COVID-19, finally available, has the potential to represent an important defence against the pandemic. The identification of both obstacles and tools to combat them are, at this moment, of strategic importance. Previous experiences on vaccinations have shown solutions and paths to take, also based on the behavioural sciences. The objective of the opinion is to face how mobile technology can help us both to fight these problems and to optimize the vaccination process. The opinion has four polarities. The first polarity consists in having detected the problems hampering an effective vaccination process. These problems have been grouped into the following four: Electronic and Informatic divide, Escape, Exposure risk, and Equity. The second polarity consists in having verified how the mobile technology can be useful to face the identified problems. The third polarity highlights the usefulness and importance of using electronic surveys. These tools are based on mobile technology. They are useful problem sensors for the stakeholders. The fourth polarity faces how mobile technology and mHealth can be of aid to optimize the flow of the vaccination process, from the first call up to the certification. This polarity is supported by an example based on the Italian national App IO. The study highlights: (a) on one side, the potential of mobile technology; on the other side, the need for interventions to reduce the digital divide with the purpose to increase its use. (b) How the role of mobile technology can be complementary to other intervention methods.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Equal Access to Vaccines

The COVID-19 pandemic has evidenced the chronic inequality that exists between populations and communities as regards global healthcare. Vaccination, an appropriate tool for the prevention of infection, should be guaranteed by means of proportionate interventions to defeat such inequality in populations and communities affected by a higher risk of infection. Equitable criteria of justice should be identified and applied with respect to access to vaccination and to the order in which it should be administered. This article analyzes, as regards the worldwide distribution of anti-COVID-19 vaccines, the various ways the principle of equity has been construed and applied or even overlooked. The main obstacle to equal access to vaccines is vaccine nationalism. The perception of equity varies with the differing reference values adopted. Adequate response to needs appears to be the principal rule for achieving the criterion of equity in line with distributive justice. Priorities must be set equitably based on rational parameters in accordance with current needs. The entire process must be governed by transparency, from parameter identification to implementation. The issue of equal access to vaccination affects the entire world population, necessitating specific protective interventions. In light of this, the World Health Organization (WHO) has devised the COVAX plan to ensure that even the poorest nations of the world receive the vaccine; certain initiatives are also supported by the European Union (EU). This pandemic has brought to the fore the need to build a culture of equitable relationships both in each country’s own domain and with the rest of the world.

An Updated Review of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and the Importance of Effective Vaccination Programs in Pandemic Times

Since the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic was declared a year ago, the search for vaccines has become the top priority in order to restore normalcy after 2.5 million deaths worldwide, overloaded sanitary systems, and a huge economic burden. Vaccine development has represented a step towards the desired herd immunity in a short period of time, owing to a high level of investment, the focus of researchers, and the urge for the authorization of the faster administration of vaccines. Nevertheless, this objective may only be achieved by pursuing effective strategies and policies in various countries worldwide. In the present review, some aspects involved in accomplishing a successful vaccination program are addressed, in addition to the importance of vaccination in a pandemic in the face of unwillingness, conspiracy theories, or a lack of information among the public. Moreover, we provide some updated points related to the landscape of the clinical development of vaccine candidates, specifically, the top five vaccines that are already being assessed in Phase IV clinical trials (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, and CoronaVac).