Italian Immunization Goals: A Political or Scientific Heated Debate?

Faith and vaccination: a scoping review of the relationships between religious beliefs and vaccine hesitancy

BACKGROUND

Throughout history, vaccines have proven effective in addressing and preventing widespread outbreaks, leading to a decrease in the spread and fatality rates of infectious diseases. In a time where vaccine hesitancy poses a significant challenge to public health, it is important to identify the intricate interplay of factors exemplified at the individual and societal levels which influence vaccination behaviours. Through this analysis, we aim to shed new light on the dynamics of vaccine hesitancy among religious groups, contributing to the broader effort to promote vaccine uptake, dispel misunderstandings, and encourage constructive dialogue with these groups.

METHODS

We used the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) using the 20-point checklist to guide this review. The inclusion criteria for our study were that the literature should be in English, concerned with vaccine hesitancy as the focus of study, study the impact religiosity or religious beliefs as either an outcome or control variable, concerning population levels, and be peer-reviewed.

RESULTS

We analysed 14 peer-reviewed articles that included components related to religiosity or religious beliefs and their impact on vaccine hesitancy published until September 2023. All the articles were published in approximately the last decade between 2012 and 2023, with only 4 of the articles published before 2020. Out of the 14 studies included in our review, twelve utilized quantitative methods, while the remaining two employed qualitative approaches. Among the studies included in our analysis, we found various approaches to categorizing religious belief and identity. In most studies when religion is uniformly regarded as the sole determinant of vaccine hesitancy, it consistently emerges as a significant factor in contributing to vaccine hesitancy. All studies in our review reported sociodemographic factors to some degree related to vaccine hesitancy within their sample populations. Our analysis underscored the need for nuanced approaches to addressing vaccine hesitancy among religious groups.

CONCLUSION

Vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue and driven by a myriad of individual and societal factors among which religious beliefs is commonly associated to be a driver of higher levels among populations.

Ubrogepant and rimegepant: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of clinical studies

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed at providing pooled estimates of the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of ubrogepant and rimegepant and to use meta-regression to identify correlations between the occurrence of selected ADRs, socio-demographic, and clinical characteristics from data published in clinical studies.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE (up to 03/02/2022) was searched along with the references listed in the reviews identified with the research query. Random intercept and slope logistic regression models were used to estimate the logit transformation of the pooled incidence. To examine how selected clinical and socio-demographic characteristics correlated with the pooled incidence rates, we performed random-effects meta-regression.

RESULTS

Significant heterogeneity of incidence estimates was observed in clinical studies along with correlations between ADRs and the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients exposed to ubrogepant. In particular, we observed a correlation between ubrogepant dosage and muscle strain and between Body Mass Index (BMI) and liver function values. For rimegepant, significant correlations were observed between age and infections and having aura symptoms at baseline and nausea/dizziness/diarrhea/muscle strain.

CONCLUSION

This study provided pooled incidence estimates of ubrogepant and rimegepant's ADRs and highlighted new safety aspects of the pharmacological treatment with ubrogepants and rimigepants from correlations obtained from the meta-regression.

A review of the sustainability of vaccine funding across Europe and implications for post-COVID policymaking

BACKGROUND

Approaches to routine vaccine funding and the underlying budget-setting process vary greatly across European countries. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on healthcare systems, affecting resilience of the overall vaccine ecosystem.

METHODS

This article reviews how vaccine budgets are structured across 8 European countries (England, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Romania, and Spain). First a literature review of the landscape was undertaken, followed by expert interviews to review the findings and consider policy principles to secure prioritisation and sustainability of routine vaccination budgets post-COVID.

RESULTS

The organisation of budgets and vaccine spending varies greatly across Europe. In 2/8 countries (France and Germany) vaccine spending is subsumed into a wider healthcare budget. In 2/8 countries (Italy and Romania) the budget differentiates public health and prevention spending from other areas of healthcare, though there is no standalone vaccine budget. In 4/8 countries (England, Finland, Norway and Spain) there is a standalone vaccine budget, however this may not cover all elements needed for immunisation delivery and is not always transparent.

CONCLUSION

Ensuring adequate and dynamic country vaccine budgets, with horizon scanning approaches like in England and Finland, or flexible vaccines expenditures like Germany, would greatly help the timely availability of public funding for new vaccines and strengthen vaccines supply security in Europe through a more virtuous European vaccine ecosystem.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Global Diseases and Human Well-Being

This editorial of the Special Issue “Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Global Diseases and Human Well-Being” aims to portray the repercussions of the novel COVID-19 emergency on a wide range of health issues [...]

Flu vaccination in multiple sclerosis patients: a monocentric prospective vaccine-vigilance study

BACKGROUND

In 2020, the Italian Medicines Agency recommended to bring forward the flu vaccination campaign, whose importance was also emphasized for patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). We aimed to assess the safety profile of flu vaccines in terms of occurrence of short-term and long-term Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFIs).

METHODS

This is an observational study that enrolled MS patients who were eligible for any of the flu vaccines recommended by the Italian medicines Agency.

RESULTS

194 patients were enrolled. Out of 133 patients who accepted to be vaccinated, 45 experienced not serious short-term AEFIs (pain at the injection site, headache, flu-like symptoms, fatigue). Long-term AEs were detected in 12 vaccinated patients (flu-like symptoms, COVID-19 and MS relapse). No statistically significant differences in terms of infections or MS relapse were found between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis we observed no differences in the cumulative survival rate in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Flu vaccines were well tolerated in MS patients, who mainly experienced not serious short term AEFIs. Considering that COVID-19 vaccines campaign is still ongoing among MS patients, our results might bring new knowledge concerning the safety profile of vaccines in this frail population.

Autopsy Findings and Causality Relationship between Death and COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review

The current challenge worldwide is the administration of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. Considering that the COVID-19 vaccination represents the best possibility to resolve this pandemic, this systematic review aims to clarify the major aspects of fatal adverse effects related to COVID-19 vaccines, with the goal of advancing our knowledge, supporting decisions, or suggesting changes in policies at local, regional, and global levels. Moreover, this review aims to provide key recommendations to improve awareness of vaccine safety. All studies published up to 2 December 2021 were searched using the following keywords: “COVID-19 Vaccine”, “SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine”, “COVID-19 Vaccination”, “SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination”, and “Autopsy” or “Post-mortem”. We included 17 papers published with fatal cases with post-mortem investigations. A total of 38 cases were analyzed: 22 cases were related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 administration, 10 cases to BNT162b2, 4 cases to mRNA-1273, and 2 cases to Ad26.COV2.S. Based on these data, autopsy is very useful to define the main characteristics of the so-called vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination: recurrent findings were intracranial hemorrhage and diffused microthrombi located in multiple areas. Moreover, it is fundamental to provide evidence about myocarditis related to the BNT162B2 vaccine. Finally, based on the discussed data, we suggest several key recommendations to improve awareness of vaccine safety.

Influenza Vaccine Hesitancy in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Monocentric Observational Study

Background. The so-called “vaccine hesitancy” still represents a common phenomenon that undermines the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. In 2020, the Italian Medicines Agency recommended to bring forward the flu vaccination campaign, whose importance was also emphasized for patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). We aimed to assess vaccination behavior in patients with MS to prepare for the upcoming SARS-CoV-2 vaccination challenge. Methods. This is an observational study carried out in one MS clinical Centre that enrolled all MS patients who were eligible for any of the flu vaccines recommended by the Italian medicines Agency. Results. 194 patients were enrolled. Patients’ mean age was 43.9 years and 66% were female. Comorbidities, mainly represented by non-autoimmune diseases, were identified in 52% of patients. Almost all patients were receiving a DMT during the study period, mainly dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab, teriflunomide, and interferon. Out of 194 patients, 58.2% accepted to be vaccinated. No statistically significant differences were found, except for the use of natalizumab, which was higher among vaccinated patients. Conclusion. The results of our study emphasize the importance of education and communication campaigns addressed both to healthcare providers and patients with MS, especially considering that MS patients are currently receiving COVID-19 vaccinations.

Attitudes of Healthcare Personnel towards Vaccinations before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Vaccines constitute highly effective tools for controlling and eliminating vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) and are assessed to avert between two to three million deaths per year globally. Healthcare personnel (HCP) constitute a priority group for several vaccinations. However, studies indicate significant rates of vaccine hesitancy among them and, therefore, of acceptance of vaccination recommendations. This cross-sectional study was conducted in a university hospital in Southern Italy to assess the knowledge and attitudes of HCP about VPDs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, estimate their intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19, and search for determinants that may influence their choice. A self-administered questionnaire was used. HCP improved their knowledge about VPDs and were more favorable to vaccinations in September–December 2020 compared to January–December 2019. Overall, 75% of respondents would get a COVID-19 vaccine. Our findings indicate a potential role of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on Italian HCP’s knowledge and attitudes towards vaccines.

Vaccines Safety in Children and in General Population: A Pharmacovigilance Study on Adverse Events Following Anti-Infective Vaccination in Italy

Background: The concern for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) and anti-vaccination movements that lacked scientific evidence-based supports may reduce vaccine uptake in the general population. Thus, the aims of the present study were to characterize AEFI in general population (all age groups), in terms of frequency, preventability, and seriousness and to define predictors of their seriousness in children.

Methods: A retrospective study was performed on suspected AEFI reports for children and adults who received any form of vaccinations, collected in Tuscany, Italy, between 1 January and 31 December 2017. Patients’ characteristics, suspected vaccines, and AEFI description were collected. Causality and preventability were assessed using WHO and Schumock and Thornton algorithms, respectively. Logistic regression was used to estimate the reporting odds ratios of potential predictors of AEFI seriousness in children.

Results: A total of 223 suspected AEFI reports were collected, and the majority of them were defined as non-serious (76.7%). Reports were mostly related to one vaccine, and to a median of two to five strains/toxoids. The total number of simultaneously administered strains/toxoids and the presence of allergens did not correlate with AEFI seriousness. Considering vaccines with a high number of administered doses (≥60,000 doses), the rates estimated for serious AEFI reports were always very low, ranging between 0.01 and 0.2/1,000 doses. Twenty-four vaccines (8,993 doses) were not related to any AEFI.

Conclusion: Results of present study showed that AEFI were very rare; the vast majority of them was non-serious and, despite the claims of anti-vaccination movements, the simultaneous administration of vaccines was safe and did not influence the risk of reporting a serious AEFI, particularly in children.

The mad leading the blind: Perceptions of the vaccine-refusal movement among Australians who support vaccination

BACKGROUND

Vaccine refusal is shaped by the social ecology in which it occurs. How people who refuse vaccines are communicated to and treated may affect the nature and strength of their negative vaccine beliefs, and their responsiveness to health promotion messages. Yet little is known about how people who refuse vaccines are perceived by the public. Our research examined perceptions among pro-vaccine Australians of the vaccine-refusal movement.

METHODS

Descriptions of the vaccine-refusal movement by 2666 pro-vaccine Australians were analysed using thematic discourse analysis. Descriptive themes were identified via inductive, iterative coding. Discourse analysis techniques were then used to interpret latent beliefs about the vaccine-refusal movement.

RESULTS

Participants had negative and stigmatising perceptions of the vaccine-refusal movement. They believed the movement is dangerous, misinformed, and comprised of charlatans and fools who are unintelligent, selfish, overly emotional, conspiratorial and scientifically illiterate. Discursive analysis showed that these perceptions were underpinned by beliefs that people would have to be defective in some way to believe anti-vaccine rhetoric. Furthermore, perceptions were underpinned by beliefs that the movement spreads not only disease, but also dangerous ideas that were seen to attack the social order, institutions, values and reason. Participants' intensely-negative views related to their inability to imagine why someone would refuse vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

This research provides a focused, qualitative account of public perceptions of the vaccine-refusal movement. The findings are concerning: stigma towards vaccine-refusing people may adversely affect their wellbeing and entrench their negative vaccine beliefs. The research suggests that more compassionate, nuanced discussion of vaccine refusal in the public sphere is needed. It also supports the need to systematically examine public attitudes towards vaccine refusal as a determinant of vaccine confidence.

To be or not to be vaccinated? That is the question among Italian healthcare workers: a medico-legal perspective

Vaccines are among the greatest medical and scientific achievements of the modern age. In this context, this article provides a medico-legal perspective on vaccinations among healthcare workers. The use of vaccines involves various issues, such as the possibility of side effects, which has led to fairly widespread suspicion and rejection, especially for vaccinations in the early years of life. Vaccine use also raises various ethical and legal problems, such as animal experimentation, obtaining informed consent, and the possibility of conflicts between individual rights and collective rights. Vaccinations is a key concept in the theme of life care, which is at the center of bioethical debate, but it also exacerbates the conflict between the good of the individual versus the good of the community. However, vaccination of healthcare workers represents a crucial measure of infection control within healthcare facilities.

Vaccination of healthcare personnel: time to rethink the current situation in Europe

Vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP) is a key measure for their protection but mainly for the protection of the susceptible patients from healthcare-associated transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases. Studies indicate that there are significant immunity gaps as well as suboptimal vaccination uptake rates among HCP across Europe. Despite the fact that all European countries have vaccination policies for HCP, there are significant variations among them in terms of recommended vaccines and implementation frameworks (recommended or mandatory). In an environment of increasing vaccine hesitancy, Italy has one of the highest rates of skepticism related to safety and effectiveness of vaccines. It is also one of the first European countries to address this issue in a comprehensive way, implementing mandatory vaccination policies for several vaccinations included in the routine vaccination program, but also for HCPs as a requirement for employment.

Vaccination of healthcare workers: is mandatory vaccination needed?

INTRODUCTION

Vaccinations of healthcare workers (HCWs) aim to directly protect them from occupational acquisition of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) and to indirectly protect their patients and the essential healthcare infrastructure. However, outbreaks due to VPDs continue to challenge healthcare facilities and HCWs are frequently traced as sources of VPDs to vulnerable patients. In addition, HCWs were disproportionately affected during the current measles outbreak in Europe. Areas covered: We reviewed the recent published information about HCWs vaccinations with a focus on mandatory vaccination policies. Expert commentary: Although many countries have vaccination programs specifically for HCWs, their vaccination coverage remains suboptimal and a significant proportion of them remains susceptible to VPDs. The increasing vaccination hesitancy among HCWs is of concern, given their role as trusted sources of information about vaccines. Mandatory vaccinations for HCWs are implemented for specific VPDs in few countries. Mandatory influenza vaccination of HCWs was introduced in the United States a decade ago with excellent results. Mandatory vaccinations for VPDs that may cause significant morbidity and mortality should be considered. Issues of mistrust and misconceptions about vaccinations should also be addressed.

Did the New Italian Law on Mandatory Vaccines Affect Adverse Event Following Immunization's Reporting? A Pharmacovigilance Study in Southern Italy

Despite the well-recognized role of vaccines, coverage is far from optimal especially in children, representing a growing concern also in Italy. In order to reverse this emergency, the Italian Ministry approved in July 2017 the Law 119/2017, which renders mandatory and free of charge 10 vaccinations for patients aged 0–16. We aim to investigate the effects of the new Law 119/2017 on the reporting of adverse events following immunization related to mandatory vaccines into the Italian Pharmacovigilance database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza – RNF). Therefore, we analyzed the spontaneous reports of suspected adverse events following immunization recorded in Campania Region (South of Italy) from December 1, 2016, to March 31, 2018. During the study period, 69 reports, covering 179 AEFIs, related to mandatory vaccines were sent to Campania Pharmacovigilance Regional Center. A substantial increase in AEFIs reporting was observed after the adoption of Law 119/2017. Out of 69 reports, 62% reported AEFIs that were considered as not serious and 78% had a favorable outcome. Out of 179 AEFIs, more than half referred to the following SOC: “general disorders and administration site conditions,” “nervous system disorders,” and “psychiatric disorders.” The highest number of reports came from patient/citizen. After the adoption of the Law 119/2017, there was an increase in the number of reports (18 before the adoption of the Law vs. 51 after). According to reported AEFIs during the entire period, no worrying safety data have emerged. In our opinion, the increase in the number of AEFIs’ reports should be related to the increase in vaccination coverage as well as to the intense debate that has followed the new Law. In this context, the continuous monitoring of vaccine safety and the fully implementation of vaccine–vigilance programs play a key role in achieving higher confidence in immunization programs and optimal vaccination coverage rate.