Dataset Information

COVID-19 vaccination for children with pulmonary hypertension: efficacy, safety and reasons for opting against vaccination.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the reasons why pulmonary hypertension (PH) children refused vaccination against COVID-19, evaluate the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in PH children.

Study design

This retrospective cohort study included congenital heart disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (CHD-PAH) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia associated PH (BPD-PH) children who were divided into vaccinated group and non-vaccinated group. Univariate logistic regression analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were conducted to explore the reasons why PH children refused COVID-19 vaccine. Then, the prevalence, the number of symptoms, and the severity of COVID-19 disease were compared between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

Result

We included 73 children and 61 children (83.6%) were unvaccinated. The main reasons for not being vaccinated were fear of worsening of existing diseases (31%). Age < 36 months (RR: 0.012; P < 0.001) and the presence of comorbidities (RR = 0.06; P = 0.023) were risk factors influencing willingness to vaccinate. The most common adverse events (AEs) were injection site pain (29.6%). COVID-19 vaccines are safe for PH children. The prevalence of COVID-19 disease decreased in PH children after vaccination (RR = 0.51; P = 0.009). 1 month after negative nucleic acid test or negative antigen test, PH children in the vaccinated group had fewer symptoms (P = 0.049).

Conclusions

The vaccination rate of COVID-19 vaccine is low in CHD-PAH and BPD-PH children while COVID-19 vaccines are safe. Vaccination can reduce the prevalence of COVID-19 disease and the number of symptoms 1 month after negative nucleic acid or antigen tests.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10582704 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

COVID-19 vaccination for children with pulmonary hypertension: efficacy, safety and reasons for opting against vaccination.

Zhang Zeying Z Wang Dan D Zuo Wanyun W Wang Xun X Yang Fan F Luo Haiyan H Xiao Zhenghui Z Liu Qiming Q Xiao Yunbin Y

Frontiers in pediatrics 20231004

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the reasons why pulmonary hypertension (PH) children refused vaccination against COVID-19, evaluate the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in PH children.<h4>Study design</h4>This retrospective cohort study included congenital heart disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (CHD-PAH) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia associated PH (BPD-PH) children who were divided into vaccinated group and non-vaccinated group. Univariate logistic regression analysis an ...[more]

PMID: 37859771

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the increased risk for pulmonary hypertension in children with Down syndrome, the response to treatment with targeted therapies for pulmonary hypertension in these patients is not well characterized. The Sildenafil in Treatment-naive children, Aged 1-17 years, with pulmonary arterial hypertension (STARTS-1) trial was a dose-ranging study of the short-term efficacy and safety of oral sildenafil in children with pulmonary arterial hypertension. We assessed the safety and efficacy of oral sildenafil in children with Down syndrome and pulmonary arterial hypertension.MethodsThis was a post-hoc analysis of children with Down syndrome and pulmonary arterial hypertension enrolled in the STARTS-1 trial. Mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP), pulmonary vascular resistance index (PVRI), and cardiac index (CI) were assessed at baseline and following 16 weeks of treatment with sildenafil.ResultsOf 234 patients randomized and treated in the STARTS-1 trial, 48 (20.5%) had Down syndrome. Although sildenafil produced dose-related reductions in PVRI and mPAP, compared with placebo, in non-Down syndrome patients and children developmentally able to exercise, this was not satisfactorily marked in patients with Down syndrome. The dose-related reductions in PVRI, compared with placebo, occurred in all subgroups, with the exception of the Down syndrome subgroup. Sildenafil appeared to be well tolerated in the Down syndrome subpopulation and the most frequently reported AEs were similar to those reported for the entire STARTS-1 population.ConclusionSildenafil treatment for 16 weeks had no effect on PVRI or mPAP in children with Down syndrome and pulmonary arterial hypertension. The results suggest that children with Down syndrome may be less responsive to sildenafil for pulmonary arterial hypertension, but the incomplete work-up for the etiology of pulmonary arterial hypertension may have introduced a potential bias.Trial registrationStudy received, September 8, 2005 (retrospectively registered); Study start, August 2003; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00159913 .

Project description:BACKGROUND:Understanding reasons for and against vaccination from the parental perspective is critical for designing vaccination campaigns and informing other interventions to increase vaccination uptake in Canada. The objective of this study was to understand maternal vaccination decision making for children. METHODS:Mothers participating in a longitudinal community-based pregnancy cohort, the All Our Babies study in Calgary, Alberta, completed open-ended survey questions providing explanations for the vaccination status of their child by 24?months postpartum. Qualitative responses were linked to administrative vaccination records to examine survey responses and recorded child vaccination status. RESULTS:There were 1560 open-ended responses available; 89% (n?=?1391) provided explanations for vaccinating their children, 5% (n?=?79) provided explanations for not vaccinating/delaying, and 6% (n?=?90) provided explanations for both. Themes were similar for those vaccinating and not vaccinating/delaying; however, interpretations were different. Two broad themes were identified: Sources of influence and Deliberative Processes. Sources of influence on decision making included personal, family, and external experiences. Deliberative Processes included risk, research, effectiveness, and balancing risks/benefits. Under Deliberative Processes, responsibility was a category for those vaccinating; while choice, instrumental/practical, and health issues were categories for those not vaccinating/delaying. Mothers' levels of conviction and motivation provided a Context for understanding their decision making perspectives. CONCLUSIONS:Vaccination decision making is complex and impacted by many factors that are similar but contribute to different decisions depending on mothers' perspectives. The results of this study indicate the need to examine new intervention approaches to increase uptake that recognize and address feelings of pressure and parental commitment to choice.

Project description:ImportanceHong Kong was held as an exemplar for pandemic response until it recorded the world's highest daily COVID-19 mortality, which was likely due to vaccine refusal. To prevent this high mortality in future pandemics, information on underlying reasons for vaccine refusal is necessary.ObjectivesTo track the evolution of COVID-19 vaccination willingness and uptake from before vaccine rollout to mass vaccination, to examine factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine refusal and compare with data from Singapore, and to assess the population attributable fraction for vaccine refusal.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from randomly sampled participants from 14 waves of population-based studies in Hong Kong (February 2020 to May 2022) and 2 waves of population-based studies in Singapore (May 2020 to June 2021 and October 2021 to January 2022), and a population-wide registry of COVID-19 vaccination appointments. Data were analyzed from February 23, 2021, to May 30, 2022.ExposuresTrust in COVID-19 vaccine information sources (ie, health authorities, physicians, traditional media, and social media); COVID-19 vaccine confidence on effectiveness, safety, and importance; COVID-19 vaccine misconceptions on safety and high-risk groups; political views; and COVID-19 policies (ie, workplace vaccine mandates and vaccine pass).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were the weighted prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination willingness over the pandemic, adjusted incidence rate ratios, and population attributable fractions of COVID-19 vaccine refusal. A secondary outcome was change in daily COVID-19 vaccination appointments.ResultsThe study included 28 007 interviews from 20 waves of longitudinal data, with 1114 participants in the most recent wave (median [range] age, 54.2 years [20-92] years; 571 [51.3%] female). Four factors-mistrust in health authorities, low vaccine confidence, vaccine misconceptions, and political views-could jointly account for 82.2% (95% CI, 62.3%-100.0%) of vaccine refusal in adults aged 18 to 59 years and 69.3% (95% CI, 47.2%-91.4%) of vaccine refusal in adults aged 60 years and older. Workplace vaccine mandates were associated with 62.2% (95% CI, 9.9%-139.2%) increases in daily COVID-19 vaccination appointments, and the Hong Kong vaccine pass was associated with 124.8% (95% CI, 65.9%-204.6%) increases in daily COVID-19 vaccination appointments.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that trust in health authorities was fundamental to overcoming vaccine hesitancy. As such, engendering trust in health care professionals, experts, and public health agencies should be incorporated into pandemic preparedness and response.

Dataset Information

COVID-19 vaccination for children with pulmonary hypertension: efficacy, safety and reasons for opting against vaccination.

Objective

Study design

Result

Conclusions

Publications

COVID-19 vaccination for children with pulmonary hypertension: efficacy, safety and reasons for opting against vaccination.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets