Background The COVID-19 vaccines provide renewed hope in the fight against the recent pandemic. To ensure widespread vaccination, it is crucial to analyze vaccine willingness and its determinants among physicians, key health care influencers. This study aimed to assess acceptance rate and identify factors associated with vaccine hesitancy among Thai physicians. Methods A cross-sectional online-based questionnaire was distributed to all physicians at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital during March 31, 2021 to April 30, 2021 in order to assess their attitudes toward receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Reasons for vaccine acceptance and refusal as well as predictors of vaccine hesitancy were analyzed by bivariate and multivariable analysis. Results A total of 705 complete responses were received with 95.6% (n = 675) of physicians expressing willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Only one of the 31 physicians (4.4%) who expressed a hesitancy or unwillingness to be vaccinated was a faculty member; the others were physicians-in-training. Approximately one-fifths of physicians surveyed were also not willing to recommend the vaccine to their family members (21.4%, n = 151) or patients (18.7%, n = 132). Using multivariable logistic regression, vaccine hesitancy was independently associated with preference for particular vaccines over the government allocated option, especially for mRNA vaccine (aOR 8.86; 95% CI 1.1–71.54; p = 0.041). Vaccine literacy showed an inverse relationship (aOR 0.34; 95% CI 0.13–0.9; p = 0.029) with vaccine hesitancy. Uncertainty of the vaccine efficacy (83.9%) and fear of adverse events (48.4%) were major concerns contributing to vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion This study revealed a high rate of physician willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine especially among staffs; however, a significant proportion would not currently suggest vaccination to their families or patients. Restrictions on vaccine choice and vaccine illiteracy, together with concerns over adverse effects and uncertainty of efficacy, were associated with negative attitudes toward vaccination. To raise acceptance of the vaccination program, efforts should be made to balance individual preference for vaccine type in addition to increasing the availability of accurate data on safety and efficacy for each vaccine.

Although vaccination is widely accepted as an effective method of preventing and controlling the COVID‐19 pandemic, many people are concerned about possible cutaneous side‐effects, which can delay or prevent them from being vaccinated. The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the global prevalence and clinical manifestations of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID‐19 vaccination. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for articles published from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021, and reference lists for each selected article were screened. Case reports, case series, observational studies and randomized controlled trials that provided information on cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID‐19 vaccines were included. A total of 300 studies were included in a systematic review of which 32 studies with 946 366 participants were included in the meta‐analysis. The pooled prevalence of cutaneous manifestations following COVID‐19 vaccination was 3.8% (95% CI, 2.7%–5.3%). COVID‐19 vaccines based on the mRNA platform had a higher prevalence than other platforms at 6.9% (95% CI, 3.8%–12.3%). Various cutaneous manifestations have been reported from injection site reactions, which were the most common (72.16%) to uncommon adverse reactions such as delayed inflammatory reactions to tissue filler (0.07%) and flares of pre‐existing dermatoses (0.07%). Severe cutaneous reactions such as anaphylaxis have also been reported, but in rare cases (0.05%). In conclusion, cutaneous adverse reactions are common, especially in those receiving mRNA vaccines. Most reactions are mild and are not contraindications to subsequent vaccination except for anaphylaxis, which rarely occurs. COVID‐19 vaccination may also be associated with flares of pre‐existing dermatoses and delayed inflammatory reactions to tissue filler. Patients with a history of allergies, pre‐existing skin conditions or scheduled for filler injections should receive additional precounselling and monitoring. A better understanding of potential side‐effects may strengthen public confidence in those wary of new vaccine technologies.

Renal anemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with poor outcomes. Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizer, which induces endogenous erythropoietin synthesis and enhances iron mobilization, is a novel treatment of anemia in CKD. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the effect of HIF stabilizers in anemic CKD patients. This meta-analysis included 43 officially published articles and 3 unpublished studies (27 338 patients). HIF stabilizer treatment significantly increased hemoglobin level when compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.19 g/dL; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.44 g/dL; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in hemoglobin level when compared with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Significant reductions of ferritin and TSAT were observed, while total iron-binding capacity was increased in the HIF stabilizer group compared with placebo or ESAs. HIF stabilizers significantly reduced hepcidin, HDL, LDL, and triglyceride levels. Acute kidney injury and thrombotic events were significantly observed in patients receiving HIF stabilizers. There were no significant differences in myocardial infarction, stroke, dialysis initiation, pulmonary hypertension, and mortality between HIF stabilizer and control groups. The present meta-analysis provided evidence that HIF-stabilizers increased hemoglobin and TIBC levels and reduced hepcidin, ferritin, and TSAT in CKD patients with renal anemia. Long-term follow-up studies on clinical outcomes of HIF stabilizers are still needed.