MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3213645881 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-152141

COVID Vaccination Rates in Children and Adults with Sickle Cell Disease in British Columbia, Canada

2021· article· en· W3213645881 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Hayley Merkeley, Marlee McGuire, Lillian Ding, Heather McCartney, Ali Amid, Caron Strahlendorf, Nina Sandhu, D. Vergidis, Maureen O’Donnell

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Établissements canadiensBC Children's HospitalProvincial Health Services AuthoritySt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineVaccinationPopulationPediatricsImmunizationDiseasePandemicFamily medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmunologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Persons with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) infected with the SARS CoV-2 virus have significantly increased risks of hospitalization and death and are strongly recommended to be fully vaccinated. Vaccine hesitancy has previously been described in the SCD population and uptake of other recommended vaccines has been reported to be low in some studies. The goal of this study was to assess how vaccination rates amongst eligible pediatric and adult SCD patients in British Columbia (BC), Canada, compared to those of the general population and other "clinically extremely vulnerable" (CEV) groups. Methods: Persons age 12 and over with SCD in BC were identified as a CEV population and prioritized for immunization. A comprehensive process was undertaken to find and identify all CEV patients in BC and notify them of their priority status. Individuals diagnosed with SCD in the province were identified in the shared pediatric and adult patient registry (iCHIP), which tracks demographics, diagnoses and therapies, and added to the CEV patient list. SCD patients were notified of their priority status through standard mail from the provincial health officer, as well as emails and phone calls from the pediatric and adult SCD programs. Those aged 16+ were invited to register for immunization beginning in March 2021 while those 12-15 years were permitted to register starting in May 2021. Adult patients were eligible to receive mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna as well as the Astra-Zeneca (AZ) COVISHIELD vaccine, while those aged 12-17 were eligible only for Pfizer vaccines. The provincial immunization registry (PIR) was interrogated to confirm vaccine administration. The main outcome measure was the proportion of SCD patients who received 1st and 2nd dose COVID vaccines. Results: 138 individuals age 12+ with SCD were identified in the iCHIP database. 71.0% had Sickle Cell Anemia (SCA), 25.4% had Hemoglobin SC (Hb SC) and 3.6% had other genotypes. Participants ranged in age from 12-69 years with a median of 28 years. 67.4% were receiving disease-modifying therapy (76 were on hydroxyurea, 11 on regular red cell exchange, 1 was receiving crizanlizumab, and 5 with Hb SC were phlebotomized). None were treated with gene therapy or transplant. 7 individuals had a PCR-confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection prior, but none following immunization. As of July 30, 2021: 68.8% of persons with SCD received a 1st and 55.1% received a 2nd dose of COVID vaccine. Almost all doses were mRNA-based vaccines with the exception of a single 1st dose administration of AZ. Vaccination rates amongst different age ranges and genotypes are displayed in Table 1. Patients with SCA did not have significantly different vaccination rates compared to those with Hb SC/other genotypes: 64.3% versus 80.0% for 1st dose (p=0.0703) and 48.0% versus 62.5% (p =0.12114) for 2nd dose. Vaccination rates amongst the SCD group were compared to other age matched CEV populations as well as the general provincial population and are detailed in Tables 2 and 3. A higher proportion of persons with SCD under the age of 20 received 1st dose (70.8% versus 31.1%; p<0.00001) and 2nd dose (50.0 versus 15.3%; p <0.00001) of vaccines compared to the general population. However, a lower proportion age 20-49 and 50+ years old received a 1st dose as demonstrated in Table 2. In addition, lower proportions of persons with SCD of all age ranges were vaccinated in comparison to other CEV groups. As demonstrated in Table 3, SCD was not associated with receiving a 1st dose vaccine compared to the general BC population (OR 0.8, 0.56 to 1.16 95% CI, p=0.2481). In contrast, persons in other CEV groups were twice as likely to receive a first dose COVID immunization compared to the general BC population (p<0.0001). No severe vaccine-related complications including vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) were reported. There were 7 presentations to hospital for vaso-occlusive crises (VOC) within 21 days of immunization. Conclusion: Despite an active CEV process to find and invite persons with SCD to be vaccinated, these data demonstrate that vaccination rates amongst persons with SCD in BC are below those of other CEV age-matched groups. Vaccination rates amongst adults are also lower than the general population, however there is a high vaccination rate in persons under 20 years old. A subsequent qualitative study exploring COVID vaccine hesitancy amongst persons with SCD in BC is being explored. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,112

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,199
Écart entre enseignants0,196 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetVaccine Coverage and HesitancyTravaux en français237 207