Background: COVID-19 vaccine side effects have a fundamental role in public confidence in the vaccine and its uptake process. Thus far, the evidence on vaccine safety has exclusively been obtained from the manufacturer-sponsored studies; therefore, this study was designed to provide independent evidence on Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine side effects. Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out between January and February 2021 to collect data on the side effects following the COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers in the Czech Republic. The study used a validated questionnaire with twenty-eight multiple-choice items covering the participants’ demographic data, medical anamneses, COVID-19-related anamneses, general, oral, and skin-related side effects. Results: Injection site pain (89.8%), fatigue (62.2%), headache (45.6%), muscle pain (37.1%), and chills (33.9%) were the most commonly reported side effects. All the general side effects were more prevalent among the ≤43-year-old group, and their duration was mainly one day (45.1%) or three days (35.8%) following the vaccine. Antihistamines were the most common drugs associated with side effects, thus requiring further investigation. The people with two doses were generally associated with a higher frequency of side effects. Conclusions: The distribution of side effects among Czech healthcare workers was highly consistent with the manufacturer’s data, especially in terms of their association with the younger age group and the second dose. The overall prevalence of some local and systemic side effects was higher than the manufacturer’s report. Further independent studies on vaccine safety are strongly required to strengthen public confidence in the vaccine.

Background: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to mass vaccination strategies that need to be accelerated currently in order to achieve a substantial level of community immunity. Independent (non-sponsored) studies have a great potential to enhance public confidence in vaccines and accelerate their uptake process. Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional study for the side effects (SE) of CoronaVac was carried out in February 2021 among Turkish healthcare workers who were recently vaccinated. The questionnaire inquired about local and systemic SEs that occurred in the short-term, within four weeks, following vaccination. Results: A total of 780 healthcare workers were included in this study; 62.5% of them experienced at least one SE. Injection site pain (41.5%) was the most common local SE, while fatigue (23.6%), headache (18.7%), muscle pain (11.2%) and joint pain (5.9%) were the common systemic SEs. Female healthcare workers (67.9%) were significantly more affected by local and systemic SEs than male colleagues (51.4%). Younger age, previous infection, and compromised health status (chronic illnesses and regular medicines uptake) can be associated with an increased risk of CoronaVac SEs; Conclusions: The independent research shows a higher prevalence of CoronaVac SEs than what is reported by phase I–III clinical trials. In general, the results of this study confirm the overall safety of CoronaVac and suggest potential risk factors for its SEs. Gender-based differences and SEs distribution among age groups are worth further investigation.

The emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and waning vaccine-elicited immunity are two public health challenges that occurred simultaneously and synergistically during the summer of 2021 and led to a surging demand for COVID-19 vaccine booster dose (BD) rollout. This study aimed to evaluate the COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) among Czech healthcare workers to explore the potential determinants of VBH. A national cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out between 3 and 11 November 2021, using an online self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) that explored the participants’ demographic characteristics, COVID-19 infection and vaccine anamneses, willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine BD, and the psychosocial drivers of VBH. A total of 3454 HCW properly responded to the online SAQ, of which 80.9% were females, 30.3% were medical professionals, and 50.5% were ≤47 years old. Most of the participants were already inoculated against SARS-CoV-2 (95.2%), and BTN162b2 was the most commonly administered vaccine (90.7%). As the study sample was planned to represent the target population, it revealed a high level of BD acceptance (71.3%) among Czech HCW, while 12.2% were still hesitant and 16.6% were against the currently available BD. These results are consistent with other recent results from central Europe. Medical professional, male, and older participants were more likely to accept BD rather than allied health professional, female, and younger participants. The BDs’ perceived effectiveness against severe illness, symptomatic infection, and community transmission was a significant and strong predictor for BD acceptance, while the effectiveness against the circulating variants was not that important for our target population. The BDs’ perceived safety and ethical dilemmas of vaccine justice should be addressed sufficiently while communicating with HCW and other population groups. The altruistic reasons for BD acceptance, i.e., family protection, patient protection, and community health protection, underpin the recommendation of postponing the COVID-19 vaccine mandating in favour of stressing these altruistic concerns amid public health messaging.

Pregnant and lactating women (PLW) represent a particular population subset with increased susceptibility for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, even though the evidence about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines was delayed due to their initial exclusion from development trials. This unclear situation could have led to increased COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy levels among PLW; therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of Czech PLW towards COVID-19 vaccines and the determinants of their attitudes. An analytical cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out in the University Hospital Brno (South Moravia, Czechia) between August and October 2021. The study utilised a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) adapted from previous instruments used for the same purpose. The SAQ included closed-ended items covering demographic characteristics, clinical and obstetric characteristics, attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination, and potential psychosocial predictors of vaccine acceptance. Out of the 362 included participants, 278 were pregnant (PW) and 84 were lactating women (LW). The overall COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (immediate and delayed) level was substantially high (70.2%), with a significant difference between PW (76.6%) and LW (48.8%). Out of the 70.2% who agreed to receive the vaccine, 3.6% indicated immediate acceptance, and 66.6% indicated delayed acceptance. Only 13.3% of the participants indicated their acceptance of their physician’s vaccination recommendation during pregnancy or while lactating, and 62.2% were against it. Our results agreed with the recent studies that revealed that PW tended to have a high level of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, and they were also inclined to resist professional recommendations because they predominantly preferred to delay their vaccination. The pregnancy trimester, education level, employment status, and previous live births were significant determinants for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The most commonly preferred vaccine type was mRNA-based vaccines, followed by viral vector-based and inactivated virus vaccines. The first top priority of PLW was vaccine safety for their children, followed by vaccine safety for the PLW and vaccine effectiveness. Regarding psychosocial predictors, media/social media, trust in the government, the pharmaceutical industry, and healthcare professionals, partners, and a positive risk-benefit ratio were significant promoters for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Findings from this study suggest that promotional interventions targeting PLW should use web platforms and focus on vaccine safety evidence, the expected benefits of vaccines and potential harms of the infection.

Background: The critically ill patients suffering from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) are susceptible to a wide array of complications that can be life-threatening or impose them to long-term complications. The COVID-19 oral mucocutaneous complications require multidisciplinary management and research for their pathophysiological course and epidemiological significance; therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of the critically ill COVID-19 patients with oral complications. Methods: We described the clinical and microbiological characteristics of the critically ill COVID-19 patients in our ICU department (Banska Bystrica, Slovakia). In addition, we reviewed the current body of evidence in Ovid MEDLINE^®, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for the oral mucocutaneous complications of ICU patients with COVID-19. Results: Three out of nine critically ill patients (33.3%) in our ICU department presented with oral complications including haemorrhagic ulcers and necrotic ulcers affecting the lips and tongue. The microbiological assessment revealed the presence of opportunistic pathogens, confirming the possibility of co-infection. On reviewing the current literature, two hundred ten critically ill patients were reported to have oral complications due to their stay in the ICU setting. Perioral pressure ulcers were the most common complication, followed by oral candidiasis, herpetic and haemorrhagic ulcers, and acute onset macroglossia. The prolonged prone positioning and mechanical ventilation devices were the primary risk factors for those oral complications, in addition to the immunosuppressive drugs. Conclusions: The multidisciplinary approach is strongly advocated for monitoring and management of COVID-19 patients, thus implying that dermatology and oral healthcare specialists and nurses should be integrated within the ICU teams.