Effectiveness of Whole-Virus COVID-19 Vaccine among Healthcare Personnel, Lima, Peru

Ethnic inequalities in coverage and use of women's cancer screening in Peru

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess ethnic inequalities in the coverage and utilization of cancer screening services among women in Peru.

METHODS

Data from the 2017-2023 Demographic and Family Health Survey in Peru were analyzed to evaluate ethnic disparities in screening coverage for breast and cervical cancer, including clinical breast examination (CBE), Pap smear test (PST), and mammography. Measures such as the GINI coefficient and Slope Index of Inequality (SII) were used to quantify coverage and utilization disparities among ethnic groups.

RESULTS

The study included 70,454 women aged 30-69. Among women aged 40-69, 48.31% underwent CBE, 84.06% received PST, and 41.69% underwent mammography. It was found inequalities in coverage for any cancer screening (GINI: 0.10), mammography (GINI: 0.21), CBE (GINI: 0.19), and PST (GINI: 0.06), in 25 Peruvian regions. These inequalities were more pronounced in regions with larger populations of Quechua, Aymara, and Afro-Peruvian women. In rural areas, Quechua or Aymara women (SII: -0.83, -0.95, and - 0.69, respectively) and Afro-Peruvian women (SII: -0.80, -0.92, and - 0.58, respectively) experienced heightened inequalities in the uptake of CBE, mammography, and PST, respectively. Like Quechua or Aymara women (SII: -0.50, SII: -0.52, and SII: -0.50, respectively) and Afro-Peruvian women (SII: -0.50, SII: -0.58, and SII: -0.44, respectively) with only a primary education.

CONCLUSION

Ethnic inequalities affect breast and cervical cancer screening coverage across regions in Peru. In Quechua, Aymara, and Afro-Peruvian women the uptake of mammography, CBE, and PST was less frequently than their white or mestizo counterparts. These inequalities are attributed to sociodemographic conditions such as lower education levels and residence in rural or non-capital areas.

Healthcare personnel in 2016-2019 prospective cohort infrequently got vaccinated, worked while ill, and frequently used antibiotics rather than antivirals against viral influenza illnesses

Background

Uncertainty about risk of illness and the value of influenza vaccines negatively affects vaccine uptake among persons targeted for influenza vaccination.

Methods

During 2016-2019, we followed a cohort of healthcare personnel (HCP) targeted for free-of-charge influenza vaccination in five Lima hospitals to quantify risk of influenza, workplace presenteeism (coming to work despite illness), and absenteeism (taking time off from work because of illness). The HCP who developed acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) (≥1 of acute cough, runny nose, body aches, or feverishness) were tested for influenza using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR).

Findings

The cohort (2968 HCP) contributed 950,888 person-days. Only 36 (6%) of 605 HCP who participated every year were vaccinated. The HCP had 5750 ARI and 147 rt-PCR-confirmed influenza illnesses. The weighted incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza was 10.0/100 person-years; 37% used antibiotics, and 0.7% used antivirals to treat these illnesses. The HCP with laboratory-confirmed influenza were present at work while ill for a cumulative 1187 hours.

Interpretation

HCP were frequently ill and often worked rather than stayed at home while ill. Our findings suggest the need for continuing medical education about the risk of influenza and benefits of vaccination and stay-at-home-while-ill policies.

Real-world effectiveness and factors associated with effectiveness of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

The two inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV, have been widely used to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The influence of multiple factors on inactivated vaccine effectiveness (VE) during long-term use and against variants is not well understood.

METHODS

We selected published or preprinted articles from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the WHO COVID-19 database by 31 August 2022. We included observational studies that assessed the VE of completed primary series or homologous booster against SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19. We used DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models to calculate pooled estimates and conducted multiple meta-regression with an information theoretic approach based on Akaike's Information Criterion to select the model and identify the factors associated with VE.

RESULTS

Fifty-one eligible studies with 151 estimates were included. For prevention of infection, VE associated with study region, variants, and time since vaccination; VE was significantly decreased against Omicron compared to Alpha (P = 0.021), primary series VE was 52.8% (95% CI, 43.3 to 60.7%) against Delta and 16.4% (95% CI, 9.5 to 22.8%) against Omicron, and booster dose VE was 65.2% (95% CI, 48.3 to 76.6%) against Delta and 20.3% (95% CI, 10.5 to 28.0%) against Omicron; primary VE decreased significantly after 180 days (P = 0.022). For the prevention of severe COVID-19, VE associated with vaccine doses, age, study region, variants, study design, and study population type; booster VE increased significantly (P = 0.001) compared to primary; though VE decreased significantly against Gamma (P = 0.034), Delta (P = 0.001), and Omicron (P = 0.001) compared to Alpha, primary and booster VEs were all above 60% against each variant.

CONCLUSIONS

Inactivated vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection was moderate, decreased significantly after 6 months following primary vaccination, and was restored by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 was greatest after boosting and did not decrease over time, sustained for over 6 months after the primary series, and more evidence is needed to assess the duration of booster VE. VE varied by variants, most notably against Omicron. It is necessary to ensure booster vaccination of everyone eligible for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and continue monitoring virus evolution and VE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42022353272.