Nocebo-Prone Behavior Associated with SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Hesitancy in Healthcare Workers

Identifying and Managing Those at Risk for Vaccine-Related Allergy and Anaphylaxis

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines, the most severe of which is anaphylaxis, are uncommon events occurring in fewer than 1 in a million doses administered. These reactions are infrequently immunoglobulin E-mediated. Because they are unlikely to recur, a reaction to a single dose of a vaccine is rarely a contraindication to redosing. This narrative review article contextualizes the recent knowledge we have gained from the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic rollout of the new mRNA platform with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines within the much broader context of what is known about immediate reactions to other vaccinations of routine and global importance. We focus on what is known about evidence-based approaches to diagnosis and management and what is new in our understanding of mechanisms of immediate vaccine reactions. Specifically, we review the epidemiology of immediate hypersensitivity vaccine reactions, differential diagnosis for immune-mediated and nonimmune reaction clinical phenotypes, including how to recognize immunization stress-related responses. In addition, we highlight what is known about mechanisms and review the rare but important contribution of excipient allergies and specifically when to consider testing for them as well as other key features that contribute to safe evaluation and management.

Understanding the Challenges of Intensive Care Staff in Communicating With Patients and Patients' Families During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Qualitative Exploration

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) isolation protocols in India restricted family members of COVID-19 patients from visiting them in hospitals and in intensive care units, especially during the peak of the pandemic. This along with the elaborate personal protective equipment (PPE) created challenges for intensivists and nurses in COVID ICUs in effectively communicating with patients and patients' families, especially in shared decision-making processes. Methods This article is the outcome of a qualitative study using in-depth one-on-one interviews with 10 intensivists and four intensive care nurses in two teaching hospitals in Bengaluru, South India. Each participant, purposively selected till data saturation was reached, had spent extensive periods of time in a COVID ICU during both COVID-19 waves in 2020 and 2021. A framework of descriptive phenomenology led to the design of the study in which varied experiences and insights of participants were captured using an interview guide to understand their lived reality. The interviews were conducted online or in person between July 2021 and October 2021 and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Coding of transcripts using the NVivo 12 (Burlington, MA: QSR International Pty Ltd) software helped with the thematic analysis. This was guided by interpretive phenomenological methods that derived meaning from participants' life experiences. Results Four themes involving challenges in effective communication in the COVID ICU emerged as follows: physical barriers, emotional and mental stressors, infrastructural challenges, and ethical and moral dilemmas. Sub-themes included personal protective equipment as a barrier, reduced energy levels, and isolation of family from patients under the domain of physical challenges; fears of the unknown, handling death of patients in isolation, and the frustrations of families were challenges under the emotional and mental domain. Infrastructural/systemic challenges included poor connectivity and insufficient mobile phones, and the absence of rules to handle interruptions. Privacy breaches, taking consent over the phone, end-of-life discussions, and medico-legal risks emerged as the subthemes under the domain of ethical and moral challenges. A mobile phone communication policy specifying usage times and operating methods, a mandatory communication and counseling training module for intensivists and intensive care nurses, and a set of protocols for highly restrictive, intensive care units in pandemic situations were recommendations and lessons learned. Conclusions The lack of face-to-face interactions was a serious barrier to communication between ICU staff and patients and their caregivers. It had a bearing on trust levels and had emotional and ethical consequences for healthcare teams to handle. Opportunities for self-care, venting of anxiety and distress, and opportunities to celebrate and reward special efforts and cooperation between consultants, residents, nurses, and technicians in stressful environments like a pandemic ICU were important to sustain empathy and keep care and communication humane.

Meta-analysis of placebo-arm dropouts in osteoporosis randomized-controlled trials and implications for nocebo-associated discontinuation of anti-osteoporotic drugs in clinical practice

Dropout from placebo arms in randomized-controlled trials is a surrogate for nocebo responses, resulting from patients' negative expectations to treatment. Among 16,460 placebo-treated patients in oral anti-osteoporotic drug trials, nocebo dropouts were 8% on average, being higher in older patients. This implies that nocebo may contribute to the osteoporosis treatment gap in clinical practice.

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis is a common disease requiring long-term treatment. Despite the availability of effective anti-osteoporotic drugs, adherence to treatment is low. Nocebo, a behavior mostly related to the negative expectations to a certain treatment, decreases adherence and negatively affects treatment outcomes and health-related care costs in chronic diseases. Since in double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials any unfavorable outcome leading to discontinuation in placebo arms is considered as nocebo, we aimed to investigate the size of nocebo response in patients participating in osteoporosis trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for dropouts due to reported adverse events in the placebo arms (nocebo dropouts) in all double-blind trials investigating anti-osteoporotic drugs published between January 1993 and March 2022. Only data on bisphosphonates and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) were analyzed (Prospero registration number CRD42020212843).

RESULTS

Data from 44 trials were extracted. In 16,460 placebo-treated patients, the pooled nocebo-dropout was 8% both for bisphosphonates (average: 0.08; range 0.01-0.27; 95%CI 0.06-0.10) and SERMs (average: 0.08; range 0.03-0.15; 95%CI 0.05-0.13). Nocebo-dropouts were higher in bisphosphonate trials enrolling individuals ≥ 65 years (11%) (n = 18) compared to trials enrolling younger individuals (6%) (n = 18) (average: 0.11; 95%CI 0.08-0.13 vs. average: 0.06; 95%CI 0.05-0.08, respectively, p = 0.001). Participants' sex, dosing-intervals, publication year, or severity of osteoporosis had no impact on the nocebo-dropouts.

CONCLUSION

Almost 1 in 10 osteoporosis patients receiving placebo in trials of bisphosphonates and SERMs experiences AEs leading to dropout, implying that nocebo contributes to treatment-discontinuation in clinical practice. Efforts to identify and minimize nocebo, especially in older patients, are warranted.

Short-Term Adverse Events and Antibody Response to the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in 4156 Health Care Professionals

Short-term adverse events are common following the BNT162b2 vaccine for SARS-Cov-2 and have been possibly associated with IgG response. We aimed to determine the incidence of adverse reactions to the vaccine and the impact on IgG response. Our study included 4156 health-care professionals who received two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine 21 days apart and obtained 6113 online questionnaires inquiring about adverse events. The serum response was tested in 2765 subjects 10 days after the second dose. Adverse events, most frequently a local reaction at the site of injection, were reported by 39% of subjects. Multivariate analysis showed that female sex (odds ratio—OR—1.95; 95% confidence interval—CI—1.74−2.19; p < 0.001), younger age (OR 0.98 per year, p < 0.001), second dose of vaccine (OR 1.36, p < 0.001), and previous COVID-19 infection (OR 1.41, p < 0.001) were independently associated with adverse events. IgG response was significantly higher in subjects with adverse events (1110 AU/mL—IQR 345-1630 vs. 386 AU/mL, IQR 261-1350, p < 0.0001), and the association was more pronounced in subjects experiencing myalgia, fever, and lymphadenopathy. We demonstrate that a more pronounced IgG response is associated with specific adverse events, and these are commonly reported by health care professionals after the BNT162b2 vaccine for SARS-Cov-2.

COVID-19 vaccine safety and nocebo-prone associated hesitancy in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the rate and type of adverse effects (AEs) and the frequency of disease flares after COVID-19 vaccination and to assess the reasons for vaccination hesitancy (non-vaccination) in SRD patients.

METHODS

Telephone interviews were conducted of SRD patients consecutively enrolled (15/06/2021-1/7/2021). Participants were asked about the type of AEs and disease flare after vaccination. Reasons for vaccination hesitancy were recorded. Univariate and mutivariable analyses examined associations of demographic, clinical and other features, with occurrence of AEs, disease flare and non-vaccination. For the latter, association with negative vaccination behaviour (not influenza vaccinated for the last 2 years) and nocebo-prone behaviour (denoting AEs attributed to negative expectations [Q-No questionnaire]) was also tested.

RESULTS

561 out of 580 contacted patients were included in the study. 441/561 (78.6%) patients were vaccinated [90% (Pfizer, Moderna), 10% (Astra-Zeneca)]. AEs were reported by 148/441 (33.6%), with rates being comparable between the three vaccines. AEs were more common in females and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [OR, 95% CI; females: 2.23 (1.30-3.83); COPD: 3.31 (1.24-8.83)]. Disease flare was reported in 9/441 (2%) patients. For those unvaccinated, fear that the vaccine would be harmful (53.3%), could cause disease flare (24.2%) and/or could cause thrombosis (21.7%) were the main reasons to do so. Multivariable analysis identified as independent variables for non-vaccination: nocebo-prone behaviour (OR; 95% CI, 3.88; 1.76-8.55), negative vaccination behaviour (6.56; 3.21-13.42) and previous COVID-19 infection (2.83; 1.13-7.05). Higher educational status was protective (0.49; 0.26-0.92).

CONCLUSION

No new safety signals for COVID-19 vaccination were observed. Vaccination campaign should target SRD patients with nocebo-prone and negative influenza vaccination behaviour.

Vaccination Hesitancy among Health-Care-Workers in Academic Hospitals Is Associated with a 12-Fold Increase in the Risk of COVID-19 Infection: A Nine-Month Greek Cohort Study

Health-Care-Workers (HCWs) are considered at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to compare rates and severity of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs conducting a retrospective cohort study in two tertiary Academic Hospitals, namely Laiko and Attikon, in Athens, Greece. Vaccinated by BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and unvaccinated HCWs were included and data were collected between 1 January 2021 and 15 September 2021. Overall, 2921 of 3219 HCWs without a history of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were fully vaccinated during the study period (90.7% at each Hospital). Demographic characteristics were comparable between 102/2921 (3.5%) vaccinated and 88/298 (29.5%) unvaccinated HCWs with COVID-19, although age and occupation differed significantly. None were in need of hospital admission in the vaccinated Group, whereas in the unvaccinated Group 4/88 (4.5%) were hospitalized and one (1.1%) died. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that lack of vaccination was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 with an odds ratio 11.54 (95% CI: 10.75-12.40). Vaccination hesitancy among HCWs resulted to highly increased COVID-19 rates; almost one in three unvaccinated HCWs was SARS-CoV-2 infected during the 9-month period. The absolute need of vaccination of HCWs, including boosting dose, is highlighted. Evidence should be used appropriately to overcome any hesitancy.