With the spread of the new SARS-CoV-2 variants, many countries have begun COVID-19 vaccine booster programs with the mix-and-match strategy. However, research on the adverse events (AE) of booster doses is still scarce. The aim of our study was to analyze the reported incidence rate (IR), and factors associated with AE, including short-term serious adverse events (SAE) and short-term non-serious adverse events (NSAE), among different vaccine products through the hospital-based Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). A total of 7432 records were collected during the three-month study period. While more than half of the responses (52.2%) reported the presence of AE after receiving a booster dose, only a few AE were considered SAE (2.4%). AE were significantly higher among women and people of younger age, and the brand of vaccines is the strongest factor associated with post-booster dose AE. The incidence of AE in mRNA1273 is higher than in BNT162b2 and MVC-COV1901 (IRR mRNA1273 vs. BNT162b2: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.11–1.34; BNT162b2 vs. MVC-COV1901: 2.77, 95% CI: 2.27–3.39). The IR of different groups were calculated to support the decision making of the booster vaccine. Although AE were not uncommon for booster vaccines, almost all AE were not serious and predictable using estimated IR. This result can be used to optimize booster vaccine decision making.

Background: Effectively predicting and reducing readmission in long-term home care (LTHC) is challenging. We proposed, validated, and evaluated a risk management tool that stratifies LTHC patients by LACE predictive score for readmission risk, which can further help home care providers intervene with individualized preventive plans. Method: A before-and-after study was conducted by a LTHC unit in Taiwan. Patients with acute hospitalization within 30 days after discharge in the unit were enrolled as two cohorts (Pre-Implement cohort in 2017 and Post-Implement cohort in 2019). LACE score performance was evaluated by calibration and discrimination (AUC, area under receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve). The clinical utility was evaluated by negative predictive value (NPV). Results: There were 48 patients with 87 acute hospitalizations in Pre-Implement cohort, and 132 patients with 179 hospitalizations in Post-Implement cohort. These LTHC patients were of older age, mostly intubated, and had more comorbidities. There was a significant reduction in readmission rate by 44.7% (readmission rate 25.3% vs. 14.0% in both cohorts). Although LACE score predictive model still has room for improvement (AUC = 0.598), it showed the potential as a useful screening tool (NPV, 87.9%; 95% C.I., 74.2–94.8). The reduction effect is more pronounced in infection-related readmission. Conclusion: As real-world evidence, LACE score-based risk management tool significantly reduced readmission by 44.7% in this LTHC unit. Larger scale studies involving multiple homecare units are needed to assess the generalizability of this study.

The LACE index and HOSPITAL score models are the two most commonly used prediction models identifying patients at high risk of readmission with limited information for home care patients. This study compares the effectiveness of these two models in predicting 30-day readmission following acute hospitalization of such patients in Taiwan. A cohort of 57 home care patients were enrolled and followed-up for one year. We compared calibration, discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve, AUC), and net reclassification improvement (NRI) to identify patients at risk of 30-day readmission for both models. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of the models was evaluated using microsimulation analysis. A total of 22 readmissions occurred after 87 acute hospitalizations during the study period (readmission rate = 25.2%). While the LACE score had poor discrimination (AUC = 0.598, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.488–0.702), the HOSPITAL score achieved helpful discrimination (AUC = 0.691, 95% CI = 0.582–0.785). Moreover, the HOSPITAL score had improved the risk prediction in 38.3% of the patients, compared with the LACE index (NRI = 0.383, 95% CI = 0.068–0.697, p = 0.017). Both prediction models effectively reduced readmission rates compared to an attending physician’s model (readmission rate reduction: LACE, 39.2%; HOSPITAL, 43.4%; physician, 10.1%; p < 0.001). The HOSPITAL score provides a better prediction of readmission and has potential as a risk management tool for home care patients.

Background: Drug reference apps promote self-management and improve the efficiency and quality of work for physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and patients. This study aimed to describe a systematic and stepwise process to identify drug reference apps in Taiwan, assess the quality of these apps, and analyze the influential factors for user ratings. Methods: A two-step algorithm (KESS) consisting of keyword growing and systematic search was proposed. Seven independent reviewers were trained to evaluate these apps using Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). A logistic regression model was fitted and average marginal effects (AME) were calculated to identify the effects of factors for higher user ratings. Results: A total of 23 drug reference apps in Taiwan were identified and analyzed. Generally, these drug reference apps were evaluated as acceptable quality with an average MARS score of 3.23. Higher user engagement, more functionality, better aesthetics, and more information associated with higher user ratings. Navigation is the most influential factor on higher user ratings (AME: 13.15%) followed by performance (AME: 11.03%), visual appeal (AME: 10.87%), credibility (AME: 10.67%), and quantity of information (AME: 10.42%). Conclusions: User experience and information clearly affect user ratings of drug reference apps. Five key factors should be considered when designing drug reference apps.