Kumari, Kanchan

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine side effects have an important role in the hesitancy of the general population toward vaccine administration. Another reason for vaccine hesitancy might be that healthcare professionals may not address their concerns regarding vaccines appropriately. Regardless, hesitancy in the form of delay, refusal, or acceptance with doubts about its usefulness can limit the downward trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the authors conducted a national cross-sectional study (n=306) to assess causes and concerns for vaccine hesitancy in caregivers in Pakistan toward getting their children vaccinated. The questions identified caregivers by socioeconomic demographics, perceived COVID-19 pandemic severity, and concerns toward the COVID-19 vaccine. The majority of the participants were 45–59 years of age (42.8%) with a mean age of 36.11 years (SD: 7.81). A total of 80% of these participants were willing to vaccinate their child with any COVID-19 vaccine. Present comorbidities had a frequency of 28.4% (n=87/306) and only 26.9% (n=66/245) participants were willing to vaccinate their child. Participants with high social standing were 15.4% (n=47/306) with the majority of them being willing to vaccinate their children (45/47). Socioeconomic status (OR:2.911 [0.999–8.483]), and the child’s vaccinations being up to date (OR:1.904 [1.078–3.365]) were found to be independent factors for caregivers to be willing to vaccinate their child. Around 62% (n=191/306) were not willing to vaccinate due to the concern for side effects, 67.6% (n=207/306) were not willing because they did not have ample information available, and 51% (n=156/306) were not willing as they were concerned about vaccine effectiveness. Further studies on vaccine safety in the pediatric population are required to improve caregivers’ perceptions.

AbstractBackgroundCurrent therapy for Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is characterized by significant glucose variability (GV). Pancreas transplantation (PT) is performed in certain T1D patients with and without end‐stage renal disease. To date, GV has been examined to a limited extent after PT.MethodsWe investigated GV using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) 3‐6 weeks after PT.ResultsEleven patients had simultaneous kidney pancreas transplantation (SPK), nine pancreas after kidney (PAK), and six pancreas transplantation alone (PTA). Mean CGM showed no difference between SPK, 126.5 ± 13.9, PAK 119.9 ± 12.8, and PTA 131.1 ± 29 mg/dL (P value .6). Percentage of time in range (TIR, 70‐180 mg/dL) was 92% for SPK, 93.4% in PAK, and 88.5% in PTA with only 0.3%, 1.5%, and 0.3% of time <70 mg/dL. Percentage >180 mg/dL was 7.9% for SPK, 4.9% PAK, and 11% in PTA. Other measures of GV were similar in the three cohorts. In six patients, CGM was performed before and after PT and improved significantly. GV was also better compared with a matched cohort of T1D patients.ConclusionsAll 3 types of PT resulted in excellent glucose control 3‐6 weeks post‐procedure. CGM outcomes represent an important objective outcome after PT.