Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, are the subject of intense debate regarding their possible applications in contexts such as health care. This study evaluates the Correctness, Clarity, and Exhaustiveness of the answers provided by ChatGPT on the topic of vaccination. The World Health Organization’s 11 “myths and misconceptions” about vaccinations were administered to both the free (GPT-3.5) and paid version (GPT-4.0) of ChatGPT. The AI tool’s responses were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, in reference to those myth and misconceptions provided by WHO, independently by two expert Raters. The agreement between the Raters was significant for both versions (p of K < 0.05). Overall, ChatGPT responses were easy to understand and 85.4% accurate although one of the questions was misinterpreted. Qualitatively, the GPT-4.0 responses were superior to the GPT-3.5 responses in terms of Correctness, Clarity, and Exhaustiveness (Δ = 5.6%, 17.9%, 9.3%, respectively). The study shows that, if appropriately questioned, AI tools can represent a useful aid in the health care field. However, when consulted by non-expert users, without the support of expert medical advice, these tools are not free from the risk of eliciting misleading responses. Moreover, given the existing social divide in information access, the improved accuracy of answers from the paid version raises further ethical issues.

In December 2019, some cases of viral pneumonia were epidemiologically related to a new coronavirus in the province of Hubei, China. Subsequently, there has been an increase in infections attributable to this virus throughout China and worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) has officially named the infection coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the virus has been classified as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This appears to be a virus from Rhinolophus bats, but the intermediate host has not yet been identified. The mechanism of infection of SARS-CoV-2 is not yet known; it appears to have affinity for cells located in the lower airways, where it replicates. The interhuman transmission of coronaviruses mainly occurs through saliva droplets and direct and indirect contact via surfaces. As of March 10, 2020, the number of cases worldwide was 113,702. Along with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), COVID-19 appears to cause a severe clinical picture in humans, ranging from mild malaise to death by sepsis/acute respiratory distress syndrome. The prognosis is worse in elderly patients with comorbidities. To date, there is no specific therapy for COVID-19. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection implies strategies that limit the spread of the virus. WHO and other international and national bodies have developed continuously updated strategic objectives and provisions to contain the spread of the virus and infection.

The last 2019/20 northern hemisphere influenza season overlapped with the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Italy was the first western country where severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread to a significant extent. In this representative cross-sectional survey, we aimed to describe some opinions and attitudes of the Italian general population towards both influenza vaccination and the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify potential modifiers of the decision-making process regarding the uptake of the 2020/21 influenza vaccine. A total of 2543 responses were analyzed. Although most (74.8%) participants valued influenza vaccination positively and declared that it should be mandatory, some misconceptions around influenza persist. The general practitioner was the main source of trusted information on influenza vaccines, while social networks were judged to be the least reliable. Younger and less affluent individuals, subjects not vaccinated in the previous season, and those living in smaller communities showed lower odds of receiving the 2020/21 season influenza vaccination. However, the COVID-19 pandemic may have positively influenced the propensity of being vaccinated against 2020/21 seasonal influenza. In order to increase influenza vaccination coverage rates multidisciplinary targeted interventions are needed. The role of general practitioners remains crucial in increasing influenza vaccine awareness and acceptance by effective counselling.

Varicella is generally considered a mild disease. Disease burden is not well known and country-level estimation is challenging. As varicella disease is not notifiable, notification criteria and rates vary between countries. In general, existing surveillance systems do not capture cases that do not seek medical care, and most are affected by underreporting and underascertainment. We aimed to estimate the overall varicella disease burden in Europe to provide critical information to support decision-making regarding varicella vaccination. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify all available epidemiological data on varicella IgG antibody seroprevalence, primary care and hospitalisation incidence, and mortality. We then developed methods to estimate age-specific varicella incidence and annual number of cases by different levels of severity (cases in the community, health care seekers in primary care and hospitals, and deaths) for all countries belonging to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) region and Switzerland. In the absence of universal varicella immunization, the burden of varicella would be substantial with a total of 5.5 million (95% CI: 4.7–6.4) varicella cases occurring annually across Europe. Variation exists between countries but overall the majority of cases (3 million; 95% CI: 2.7–3.3) would occur in children <5 years. Annually, 3–3.9 million patients would consult a primary care physician, 18,200–23,500 patients would be hospitalised, and 80 varicella-related deaths would occur (95% CI: 19–822). Varicella disease burden is substantial. Most cases occur in children <5 years old but adults require hospitalisation more often and are at higher risk of death. This information should be considered when planning and evaluating varicella control strategies. A better understanding of the driving factors of country-specific differences in varicella transmission and health care utilization is needed. Improving and standardizing varicella surveillance in Europe, as initiated by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), is important to improve data quality to facilitate inter-country comparison.

Varicella zoster virus (VZV) is the etiological agent of varicella, a highly infectious, self-limiting disease with serious complications. The decline in cell-mediated immunity (CMI) that occurs with aging or immunodepression causes a reactivation of the latent VZV as herpes zoster (HZ). Prevention of VZV through varicella vaccination strategies allows to avoid the primary infection in newborns and susceptible subjects. Available monovalent and combined VZV vaccines are effective, safe and generally well tolerated. Universal varicella vaccination has significantly impacted on incidence, complications and deaths related to this disease. Prevention of HZ through vaccination is a priority to avoid the significant burden of its incidence and complications. Currently two HZ vaccines are available. The recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), approved by the FDA in 2017 and Zoster Vaccine Live (ZVL) licensed in the United States by the FDA in 2006. The advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends RZV. ZVL remains an option for prevention of HZ in immunocompetent adults aged ≥60 years, although the CMI tends to wane a few years after vaccination.

Pertussis continues to be an important public-health issue. The high immunization coverage rates achieved, mainly in industrialized countries, have certainly decreased the spread of the pathogen. However, as immunity wanes, adolescents and adults play an important role in the dynamics of the infection. The surveillance system has several limitations and the underestimation of pertussis in adolescents, young adults and adults is mainly related to the atypical clinical characteristics of cases and the lack of lab confirmation. The real epidemiological impact of pertussis is not always perceived. The unavailability of comprehensive data should not hamper the adoption of active prophylactic measures designed to avoid the impact of waning immunity against pertussis. Different immunization strategies have been suggested and/or already adopted such as immunization of newborns, pre-school and school children, adolescents, adults, healthcare workers, childcare workers, pregnant women, cocoon strategy. Prevention o...