This perspectives piece focuses on the detrimental cost of ignoring vaccines and refusing vaccination against COVID-19 in the United States. Much of the existing literature regarding the consequences of the unvaccinated emphasizes the impact to population health; however, few academic articles have explored the burden the unvaccinated pose to various sectors of society. This paper analyzes the impact that the unvaccinated have on healthcare systems, the US economy, and global health. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, unvaccinated populations were found to have put significant strain on healthcare systems, depleting medical resources and contributing to high rates of healthcare worker shortages. Furthermore, research suggests that between November and December 2021, over 692,000 preventable hospitalizations occurred in unvaccinated individuals, costing the US economy over $13.8 billion. Lastly, it is proposed that the strong international presence of the US, when coupled with high levels of disease transmissibility in the unvaccinated, provides a significant threat to global health. In conclusion, the unvaccinated have caused impacts far beyond that of population health; they have also posed a burden to healthcare systems, the economy, and global public health.

While vaccine hesitancy is well documented in the literature among the Latinx community, little attention or effort is given to the nuances among the members of individual communities, such as country of origin, immigration status, generational status, primary language, race, age, sex, gender, or rural residence and how these complexities affect vaccine messaging and uptake. We have evidence that this heterogeneity causes differences in access to healthcare, attitudes towards vaccines, and degree of health disparities. In this review we will describe their impact on vaccination rates in the Latinx community, highlighting missed opportunities for public health outreach, and how targeted messaging could improve vaccine uptake.

This paper presents an ethical argument in support of an international Pandemic Treaty. It argues that an international Pandemic Treaty is the best way to mark progress on global vaccine equity and broader issues of global pandemic preparedness and response which came to light during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Section I evaluates principles of multilateral charity, national security, and international diplomacy standardly invoked in debates about global vaccine allocation and argues that these approaches fall short. Section II explicates notions of solidarity, duties to the least well-off, and mutual aid as ethical values more fitting for an era of emerging infectious diseases. Section III relates the discussion to an international Pandemic Treaty and presents legal, pragmatic, and ethical reasons to support it. The paper concludes that in an interconnected world, fair sharing of vaccines between nations is morally mandatory.

The United States continues to experience lower than expected vaccination rates against COVID-19 due to a variety of barriers such as lack of trust, lack of planning, cultural perspectives and issues, suboptimal communication, and political/economic conflicts of interest. In this paper issues of human behavior and decision-making are highlighted as integral to understanding the generally poor US response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In particular, the US pandemic response was significantly distorted through a combination of cultural and human behavior issues related to conflicting leadership, cultural individualism, the prevalent idea of the democratization of expertise, and a false epistemological lens for decision-making. Including experts from multiple disciplines reveals how to address the human behavioral side of pandemic planning and operations to increase vaccine coverage rates. Including content experts from psychology and the social sciences allows the explicit recognition and preparation for distorted human behavior in planning for future pandemic response.

Novel biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Although they are generally safe, they are immunomodulatory and therefore unique considerations apply in regards to infections and vaccine administration. This review aims to provide a clear and practical guide for dermatologists or other healthcare providers to reference when caring for psoriasis or atopic dermatitis patients being treated with biologic therapies using currently available guidelines and clinical data. Vaccinations for approved biologics including TNFα, IL-12/23, IL-23, IL-17, and IL-4/13 inhibitors will be discussed, with a special note on current COVID-19 vaccination recommendations.

Erythema multiforme (EM) is a rare cell-mediated immune response characterized by target or iris patches or plaques that present symmetrically on the extremities. This condition may be associated with pruritus but is usually self-limited and spontaneously resolves within 5 weeks of onset; prodromal symptoms are rare. Several known cases have been linked to vaccination, but many vaccines used in pediatric care have been reported as causative agents of EM. This case study offers an association of EM following administration of the hepatitis A and pneumococcal vaccines.

Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) is a term given to describe shoulder pain and dysfunction arising within 48 hours after vaccine administration and lasting for more than one week. While SIRVA is most commonly seen after influenza and tetanus vaccines, there have been a few recent case reports describing SIRVA-like symptoms after COVID-19 vaccine administration. Two patients presented to the shoulder surgeon's practice center with complaints of shoulder stiffness and pain following the COVID-19 vaccine. The first patient was a 33-year-old man; he presented within 2 days of onset of the pain and 14 days from the vaccine date. He had a complete restriction of shoulder motion (0° flexion, and no external or internal rotation) at presentation. This patient was treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and rested in a sling for a week. The second patient was a 53-year-old woman; she presented with a 6-week duration of mild restriction of active shoulder motion and shoulder pain. Her magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed the presence of subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis. She was treated with subacromial steroid injection and range of motion shoulder exercises. Both patients recovered a near-normal range of motion recovery within a month, and their pain improved significantly. The main lessons from this case report were: (1) patients presenting with a recent increase in pain and acute loss of shoulder movements after vaccination may be managed conservatively with rest and NSAID medications and (2) in case of a subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis in the MRI, subacromial injection of steroid may provide good pain relief.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the most common cause of lower respiratory tract illness in infants and young children. It causes substantial morbidity and mortality in young children and older adults. As few therapeutic and prophylaxis options against RSV illness are currently available, there is a great need for effective RSV vaccines and immune-prophylaxis. Encouragingly, multiple vaccines and immuno-prophylaxis aiming to protect pediatric populations have shown promising progress in clinical trials. The three major preventive strategies include RSV F-protein-based vaccines for pregnant women, extended half-life monoclonal antibodies for neonates, and live-attenuated vaccines for infants. Each preventive strategy has its own merits and challenges yet to be overcome. Challenges also exist in maximizing vaccine impacts in the post-implementation era. This perspectives piece focuses on RSV preventive strategies in young children and highlights the remaining questions in current development of RSV immunization products and design of immunization programs.

Introduction: COVID-19, the infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), often presents with a spectrum of symptoms at varying levels of severity, ranging from asymptomatic patients to those with fatal complications, such as myocarditis. With increased availability of COVID-19 vaccines, the awareness of possible side effects has expanded as reports surface. This study reviewed cases of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and with existing literature on COVID-19 infection-induced myocarditis to compare clinical courses and analyze possible mechanisms of action. Methods: A systematic review of literature was conducted to identify published case reports (as of February 3, 2022) pertaining to the development of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination with either Pfizer or Moderna for an in-depth analysis. Additional subgroup analyses were conducted based on age, past medical history, vaccine manufacturer, and dose number. Results: There were 53 eligible case reports that were included in this study. Patients were mostly male with a median age of 24 years, and the most reported symptom upon presentation was chest pain. Seventy percent of the cases involved the Pfizer vaccine with a majority of myocarditis developing subsequent to second dose. Resolution of symptoms was achieved in all but one patient. Clinical severity, as measured primarily by left ventricular ejection fraction, appeared to be worse among adult patients than pediatric, as well as for patients with comorbidities. Conclusion: This study revealed an observable association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. However, the clinical course and prognosis seem favorable and less prevalent than those conferred from natural infection.

The development of a vaccine for COVID-19 presented hope for a way out of the global crisis caused by the virus. However, a potential barrier may be vaccine hesitancy, and identifying the factors that affect it is critical, especially concerning a new vaccine technology. The purpose of this research is to identify the factors that effects vaccine hesitancy by using a holistic view. The data were collected from 504 people in December 2020, 3 days before the vaccine operation started in Israel. The analysis included three categories of determinants: (1) contextual influences; (2) health records; and (3) perceived health attitudes. The results indicate that different sets of variables affect willingness to accept the vaccine among the whole spectrum of the vaccine-hesitant and the undecided subsample. In the full sample, gender, age, income, influenza vaccine, perceived trust, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers affected vaccine acceptance. The perceived level of suffering from COVID-19 was associated with willingness to vaccinate, and when religious beliefs increased, the intention to vaccinate decreased. For the undecided subsample, the factors included gender, influenza vaccine, trust in the vaccine company, and perceived vaccine benefits and barriers. The results suggest that efforts of governments and health institutions should focus on women and highlight the vaccine as an opportunity to "go back to normal" without worries. Those results will help implement vaccine strategy in the following cases: if infant vaccination is pursued and if emergency vaccines or new vaccine technologies emerge for another pandemic as well.

Introduction: Creation of pop-up vaccination sites at trusted community locations has been encouraged to address vaccine hesitancy and provide equitable access to COVID-19 vaccination in minority communities. This study sought to study the healthcare economics of a community-based COVID-19 pop-up vaccination center in terms of the following: costs associated with operating the vaccination center, analysis of billing data from patients who received the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and costs of hospitalization for COVID-19 which may be avoided with widespread vaccination. Methods: The pop-up vaccination center was located in Port Jefferson Station, NY, USA. Costs associated with operation of the COVID-19 pop-up vaccination center were quantified, itemized, and tabulated. Current Procedural Technology codes were used to identify patients who received the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Billing data were quantified for the cohort as well as per each patient to receive the vaccine. Costs associated with provision of urgent care, emergency, and hospital services to patients with COVID-19 were obtained. Results: The total cost to operate the vaccination center was $25,880. The vaccination center administered the initial dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to N=251 patients between March and May, 2021. The standard hospital costs for patients admitted to the medical ICU due to COVID-19 ranged from $8,913 to $190,714, per patient. Conclusion: Since the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine series is effective in preventing hospitalization for 93% of patients, this community-based vaccination center's administration of the vaccine series to 240 patients meant aversion of hospitalization due to COVID-19 related morbidity for 223 patients. Therefore, the true impact of this vaccination center, measured in averted hospital costs, ranges from $1,987,599 to $42,529,222.

Background: Omalizumab has been demonstrated to be effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and was FDA approved for this indication in 2014. Previous work has shown that access to injectable biologics varies across US counties. In the present study we evaluate geographic and temporal trends in the utilization of omalizumab in the Medicare population by dermatologists, with its use by allergists and pulmonologists as comparators. Methods: We analyzed year-over-year trends in omalizumab utilization across geographic regions using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D files. Results: Utilization of omalizumab by dermatologists increased rapidly after its FDA approval, from 0.08 claims/100,000 enrollees totaling $209/100,000 enrollees in 2014 to 1.45 claims/100,000 enrollees totaling $3115/100,000 enrollees in 2017. Nonetheless, prescribing dermatologists were present in only 2.8% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 2.0%-3.9%) and 0.2% (95% CI: 0.0%-0.5%) of metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties, respectively, in 2017, demonstrating limited availability, especially in non-metropolitan counties. Similarly, prescribers of any specialty were available in 32.9% (95% CI: 30.2%-35.6%) and 3.8% (95% CI: 3.1%-4.8%) of metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties, respectively, in 2017. Conclusions: Our data suggest that despite increasing omalizumab utilization, there remains a lack of access across many counties, particularly in non-metropolitan regions. Efforts to expand omalizumab prescriber accessibility in these counties may improve outcomes for patients with CSU.

Although vaccination is the only hope to fight against COVID-19, existing vaccine hesitancy is a thought-provoking phenomenon. Significantly, vaccine hesitancy is worsening the situation in Pakistan, leading to an increased number of COVID cases. In this context, this study aims to examine people's perceptions and attitudes towards vaccination. Here the focus was on determining the factors causing disease hesitancy among the masses. The researchers randomly selected a sample of n=17 individuals and gathered data by using telephone interviews and assessed data by using the Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach. Results revealed that the increased vaccine hesitancy is due to misinformation, conspiracies, myths, and rumors about the side effects of the vaccination. It was also notable that the participants indicated digital media as the primary source of information, showing a potential relationship between social media and misinformation. Also, an intense uncertainty about the healthcare system in Pakistan is hindering the efforts to sustain herd immunity. Thus, due to several myths, rumors, and distrust of the healthcare system, vaccine hesitancy is halting the country's ability to overcome the COVID-19 outbreak. Misinformation is vigorously circulating due to ease of access to different communication platforms, instilling fear of presumed side effects. Hence, the researchers suggest some practical considerations for the government, healthcare workers, and media platforms to counteract the misinformation and increase vaccine acceptance among the masses.

Introduction: The emergence of the novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) sparked an unprecedented effort to develop effective vaccines against the disease. Some factors may boost the vaccine efficacy, including sufficient sleep and morning vaccination. We aimed to conduct a rapid systematic review to summarize data regarding the association between sleep and time of vaccination with immunity after vaccination. Materials and Methods: The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, and three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched up to March 12, 2022. Results: Eight studies were included regarding the sleep and immune response after vaccination, of them, five studies were on influenza, two studies on hepatitis A (HAV), and one study on hepatitis B. Accordingly, six out of eight studies found a positive correlation between sleep and immune response after vaccination. Regarding the time of vaccination, seven studies were eligible to be included (two studies on influenza, one study on HAV and influenza, one study on BCG, one study on hexavalent vaccine, and two studies on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine). Among them, four out of seven studies (including a study on SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine) reported the priorities of morning versus afternoon vaccination regarding antibody production and immune response after vaccination. Conclusion: Taken together, cumulative evidence suggests that sufficient sleep and vaccination in the morning could enhance the immune response after vaccination. Hence, modulating the time of vaccination and sufficient sleep could a be simple and applicable strategy for increasing vaccine efficacy. Future studies could be performed with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to investigate the effects of time of vaccination and sufficient sleep on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

[This corrects the article on p. 429 in vol. 94, PMID: 34602882.].