The objective of the present study is to reveal the acceptance and preference for the 2019 novel coronavirus disease vaccination in health-care workers (HCWs). We performed an internet-based, region-stratified survey among 352 HCWs and 189 individuals in the general population enrolled on March 17 th and 18 th 2020 from 26 Chinese provinces.The HCWs developed a more in-depth understanding of SARS-Coronavirus-2 infection and showed a higher tolerance to the future vaccination than the general population. 76.4% of HCWs (vs. 72.5% in the general) showed their willingness to receive vaccination. Potential benefits from COVID-19 outbreak such as seeking influenza (65.3%) or pneumonia (55.7%) vaccination can be gained in HCWs. To estimate the relative effects of attributes influencing vaccination choice in the discrete choice experiment, 7 attributes (3 disease-relevant, 3 vaccine-relevant, and 1 of social acceptance) were identified as key determinants. Among them, disease trend (odds ratio, OR: 4.367 (95%CI, 3.721-5.126) for seasonal epidemic, OR: 3.069 (2.612-3.605) for persistent epidemic, with reference to disappearance in summer), social contacts' decisions (0.398: 0.339-0.467 for refusal, 0.414: 0.353-0.487 for neutral, with reference to acceptance) and high possibility of being infected (2.076: 1.776-2.425 for infection probability of 30%+ ) were significantly associated with increased probability of choosing vaccination in the HCWs. In contrast, for the general population, vaccine safety and social contacts' decisions were the most important predictors. For COVID-19vaccination, education in HCWs should be taken as a priority, and further benefits of its recommendation to the general public will also be anticipated.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) and zoster vaccine live (ZVL) in immunocompetent and immunocompromised subjects.MethodsData sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases (up to Jan 2022) were searched to identify English articles. Search terms included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, herpes zoster, RZV, ZVL. Study Selection: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vaccine efficacy and safety and observational studies assessing vaccine effectiveness (after a vaccine was approved for marketing) were included. Data Extraction: Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and checked the each other results.ResultsSeventeen RCTs and 19 cohort studies were included. Among immunocompetent subjects, RZV was superior to ZVL at wide intervals (relative vaccine efficacy: 84%, 95% CI: 53%–95%; relative vaccine effectiveness: 49%, 95% CI: 21%–67%), across genders and subjects aged ≥ 60 years. Among immunocompromised subjects, RZV was superior to placebo in terms of vaccine efficacy (60%, 95% CI: 49%–69%). There was no difference between ZVL and placebo in those with selected immunosuppressive conditions. RZV was 45% (95% CI: 30%–59%) superior to ZVL in real-world practice. Compared with placebo, adverse events related to RZV were primarily related to injection-site and systemic, and RZV did not increase the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) or death. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups with and without immunosuppression.ConclusionsBoth RZV and ZVL can reduce the risk of herpes zoster in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised subjects. RZV was well-tolerated in the study population and demonstrated stronger protection than ZVL.Systematic review registrationProspero CRD42022310495.