COVID-19 vaccination and patients with psoriasis under biologics: real-life evidence on safety and effectiveness from Italian vaccinated healthcare workers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Damiani G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8012997 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) reduces the risk of occupational infections, prevents nosocomial transmission and maintains healthcare delivery during outbreaks. Despite the European directive and national legislation on workers' protection, immunization coverage among HCWs has often been very low. In light of Italian National Vaccination Plan 2012-2014 recommendations, the aim of this study was to assess levels of immunization and factors influencing adherence to vaccinations needed for HCWs in Puglia region, South Italy. The study was conducted using an interview-based standardized anonymous questionnaire administered to hospital employees in the period November 2009-March 2011. A total of 2198 health professionals responded in 51/69 Apulian hospitals (median age: 45 years; 65.2% nurses, 22.6% doctors and 12.2% other hospital personnel). Vaccination coverage was 24.8% for influenza, 70.1% for hepatitis B, 9.7% for MMR, 3.6% for varicella, and 15.5% for Td booster. Receiving counselling from occupational health physicians (OHPs) was associated with influenza (OR = 1.8; 95%CI = 1.5-2.2; P < 0.001), hepatitis B (OR = 4.9; 95%CI = 3.9-6.3; P < 0.001), varicella (OR = 43.7; 95%CI = 18.9-101.7; P < 0.001), MMR (OR = 8.8; 95%CI = 4.1-18.6; P < 0.001) and tetanus (OR = 50.5; 95%CI = 30.1-88.3; P < 0.001) vaccine uptake. OHPs should be trained with standard guidelines specific for healthcare settings and HCWs' risk groups to facilitate their crucial role in improving vaccine coverage among HCWs and increase awareness on the duty to protect both employees and patients.
| S-EPMC4514380 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMandatory vaccination has contributed to the success of immunisation programmes but voluntary vaccination allows people to be responsible for their own health. There are benefits from both policies and the arguments between them remain subject to debate within and without the scientific community, both nationally and internationally. The aim of this study is to assess the opinions of those who actually work in the Vaccination Service.MethodsThe survey was carried out using a self-administered standardised anonymous questionnaire given to all of the Vaccination Service employees in the Apulia Region.ResultsOf 302 completed questionnaire replies, 4.4% stated that mandatory vaccination should be abandoned now, 21.2% that it should be phased out, and 74.4% that it should be retained.ConclusionAn educational program should be set up to explain to Vaccination staff the value and worth of voluntary compared to mandatory vaccination and why high vaccination rates do not have to depend on compulsion.
| S-EPMC2706237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Today some vaccine-preventable diseases remain an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide despite the availability of new vaccines. Healthcare workers are particularly at risk to acquire an infection disease, playing a fundamental role in nosocomial transmission, which makes them an important target group for vaccination. The vaccination recommendations of HCWs, as well as the general population, differ from country to country. Furthermore, coverage rates vary widely a lot over the world, making HCWs vulnerable to disease and so healthcare settings to outbreaks. The motivations of vaccine hesitancy are many and maybe other studies would help policymakers and stake-holders to shape programs to improve vaccination coverage and the control of infectious diseases through the correct application of guidelines on prevention.
| S-EPMC7233663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BCG vaccination and revaccination are increasingly being considered for the protection of adolescents and adults against tuberculosis and, more broadly, for the off-target protective immunological effects against other infectious and noninfectious diseases. Within an international randomized controlled trial of BCG vaccination in healthcare workers (the BRACE trial), we evaluated the incidence of local and serious adverse events, as well as the impact of previous BCG vaccination on local injection site reactions (BCG revaccination). Prospectively collected data from 99% (5351/5393) of participants in Australia, Brazil, Spain, The Netherlands and the UK was available for analysis. Most BCG recipients experienced the expected self-limiting local injection site reactions (pain, tenderness, erythema, swelling). BCG injection site itch was an additional common initial local symptom reported in 49% of BCG recipients. Compared to BCG vaccination in BCG-naïve individuals, BCG revaccination was associated with increased frequency of mild injection site reactions, as well as earlier onset and shorter duration of erythema and swelling, which were generally self-limiting. Injection site abscess and regional lymphadenopathy were the most common adverse events and had a benign course. Self-resolution occurred within a month in 80% of abscess cases and 100% of lymphadenopathy cases. At a time when BCG is being increasingly considered for its off-target effects, our findings indicate that BCG vaccination and revaccination have an acceptable safety profile in adults.
| S-EPMC10411308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RNA was extracted from whole blood of subjects collected in Tempus tubes prior to COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. D01 and D21 correspond to samples collected at pre-dose 1 and pre-dose 2 respectively. RNA was also extracted from blood collected at indicated time points post-vaccination. DB1, DB2, DB4 and DB7 correspond to booster day 1 (pre-booster), booster day 2, booster day 4 and booster day 7 respectively. The case subject experienced cardiac complication following mRNA booster vaccination. We performed gene expression analysis of case versus controls over time.
2023-03-20 | E-MTAB-12829 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:The omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is known to have high infectivity and is more likely to evade vaccine immunity. However, booster vaccination is expected to strengthen cross-reactive immunity, thereby increasing the vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study aimed to evaluate the relative VE of the 3-dose (booster) vaccination compared with the 2-dose primary series vaccination in healthcare workers during omicron variant-dominant periods. During the omicron-dominant period from February 1, 2022 to February 28, 2022, a 1:1 matched case-control study was conducted. Healthcare workers with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were classified as positive cases, whereas those with negative results served as controls. Compared with the 2-dose primary series vaccination, booster vaccination with mRNA vaccine showed moderate VE (53.1%). However, in multivariate analysis including the time elapsed after vaccination, the significant VE disappeared, reflecting the impact of recent vaccination rather than the third dose itself.
| S-EPMC9444572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the past few years, healthcare workers (HCWs) have been considered at higher risk for tuberculosis (TB) infection than the general population. On the other hand, recent studies have reported a low conversion rate among these workers. Recently, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) updated its recommendations, suggesting that an annual screening should not be performed in the absence of a documented exposure but only in workers with high-risk duties or with job tasks in settings at high risk of tuberculosis contagion (e.g., departments of infectious or pulmonary diseases). In fact, some studies showed that annual tuberculosis screening for all the HCWs was not cost-effective in countries with a low incidence of TB. In this study, we evaluated the conversion rate and the cost-effectiveness of two different tuberculosis screening strategies in a large population of Italian HCWs. METHODS:In our retrospective study, we reviewed data coming from a tuberculosis screening conducted on 1451 HCWs in a teaching hospital of Rome. All workers were evaluated annually by means of the Quantiferon test (QFT) for a five-year period. Then, the conversion rate was calculated. RESULTS:We found a cumulative conversion rate of 0.6%. Considering the cost of the QFT test (48.26 euros per person), the screening of the HCWs resulted in a high financial burden (38,902.90 euros per seroconversion). Only one seroconversion would have been missed by applying the CDC updated recommendations, with a relevant drop of the costs: 6756.40 euros per seroconversion, with a global save of 296,075.10 euros. CONCLUSION:The risk of TB conversion among our study population was extremely low and it was related to the risk classification of the setting. Giving these results, the annual tuberculosis screening appeared to not be cost effective. We conclude that a targeted screening would be a better alternative in HCWs with a higher risk of TB exposure.
| S-EPMC7084819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionReal-world safety studies can provide important evidence on the thromboembolic risk associated with COVID-19 vaccines, considering that millions of people have been already vaccinated against COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to estimate the incidence of thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination and to compare the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine with other COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective real-world safety study using data from two different data sources: the Italian Pharmacovigilance database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza, RNF) and the Campania Region Health system (Sistema INFOrmativo saNità CampanIA, SINFONIA). From the start date of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign (27 December 2021) to 27 September 2022, information on COVID-19 vaccinations and thromboembolic events were extracted from the two databases. The reporting rate (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of thromboembolic events for 10,000 doses was calculated for each COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, the odds of being vaccinated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine vs. the other COVID-19 vaccines in cases with thromboembolic events vs. controls without thromboembolic events were computed.ResultsA total of 12,692,852 vaccine doses were administered in the Campania Region, of which 6,509,475 (51.28%) were in females and mostly related to the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine (65.05%), followed by Moderna (24.31%), Oxford-AstraZeneca (9.71%), Janssen (0.91%), and Novavax (0.02%) vaccines. A total of 641 ICSRs with COVID-19 vaccines and vascular events were retrieved from the RNF for the Campania Region, of which 453 (70.67%) were in females. Most ICSRs reported the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine (65.05%), followed by Oxford-AstraZeneca (9.71%), Moderna (24.31%), and Janssen (0.91%). A total of 2451 events were reported in the ICSRs (3.8 events for ICSRs), of which 292 were thromboembolic events. The higher RRs of thromboembolic events were found with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (RR: 4.62, 95%CI: 3.50-5.99) and Janssen vaccine (RR: 3.45, 95%CI: 0.94-8.82). Thromboembolic events were associated with a higher likelihood of exposure to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared to Pfizer-BioNtech (OR: 6.06; 95%CI: 4.22-8.68) and Moderna vaccines (OR: 6.46; 95%CI: 4.00-10.80).ConclusionWe observed a higher reporting of thromboembolic events with viral-vector-based vaccines (Oxford-AstraZeneca and Janssen) and an increased likelihood of being exposed to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared to the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna) among thromboembolic cases.
| S-EPMC10611339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nudges have been proposed as an effective tool to stimulate influenza vaccination uptake in healthcare workers. However, the success of such nudges in practice is heavily reliant on their acceptance by the intended healthcare worker population, which has not been thoroughly examined to date. This study investigated healthcare workers' acceptability of diverse influenza vaccination nudges implemented in a real-world vaccination campaign and explored the relationship between nudge acceptability and vaccination uptake. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 244 Dutch hospital employees, following a hospital-wide influenza vaccination nudging intervention. A survey assessed healthcare workers' perceived acceptability of ten distinct influenza vaccination nudges, along with their vaccination status and relevant covariates (e.g., general perceptions regarding influenza vaccination of healthcare workers). Influenza vaccination nudges in general were deemed acceptable, with reward-based nudges being the least accepted, while digital vaccination forms, a mobile vaccination post, peer vaccination, and digital vaccination reminders were most appreciated. A higher overall acceptance of these nudges was associated with a greater likelihood of being vaccinated, particularly in healthcare workers with favorable perceptions of influenza vaccination usefulness. Our findings suggest that influenza vaccination nudges are an accepted means to systematically promote immunization of healthcare workers, and thus present a viable strategy for public health policies aimed at this group.
| S-EPMC9326309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) is a crucial element to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this survey was to assess attitudes, sources of information and practices among Italian Healthcare workers (HCWs) in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: From 19 February to 23 April 2021, an anonymous voluntary questionnaire was sent to the mailing list of the main National Health Service structures. Data were collected through the SurveyMonkey platform. Results: A total of 2137 HCWs answered. Hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination was more frequent in females, in those with lower concern about COVID-19, and in nurses, auxiliary nurses (AN) and healthcare assistants. Hesitant professionals were more likely to not recommend vaccination to their patients or relatives, while a high concern about COVID-19 was related to an increased rate of recommendation to family members. HCWs were mostly in favor of mandatory vaccination (61.22%). Female sex, a lower education level, greater hesitancy and refusal to adhere to flu vaccination campaigns were predictors influencing the aversion to mandatory vaccination. All categories of HCWs referred mainly to institutional sources of information, while scientific literature was more used by professionals working in the northern regions of Italy and in infection control, infectious diseases, emergencies and critical areas. HCWs working in south-central regions, nurses, AN, healthcare technicians, administrators and HCWs with a lower education level were more likely to rely on internet, television, newspapers, and the opinions of family and friends. Conclusions: Communication in support of COVID-19 immunization campaigns should consider the differences between the various HCWs professional categories in order to efficiently reach all professionals, including the most hesitant ones.
| S-EPMC8775438 | biostudies-literature