Background: Since the supply of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines will be limited worldwide, it is essential to prioritize vaccination based on scientific evidence.Although several frameworks and studies on vaccine distribution have been published, no published systematic review has evaluated the prioritization of the COVID-19 vaccine. Materials and Methods: We searched 4 different databases, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE for articles published between January 2019 and December 31, 2020. Studies were included if they contained the primary search terms “vaccine”, “COVID-19”, and “prioritization”. In addition, we manually included reports from national and international websites. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, older adults were the most frequently mentioned group, and healthcare workers (HCWs) were mentioned as the 1st priority group. HCWs and patients with comorbidities were the 2nd and 3rd most frequently mentioned groups in the reviewed papers. Reducing severe COVID-19 was the most frequently mentioned goal. Conclusion Since vaccination programs have been initiated in several countries, scientific evidence on vaccination prioritization is needed to increase our knowledge of general vaccine prioritization and improve vaccine acceptance. Our results showed that HCWs and older adults were the most frequently valued in studies.

Background: Since the supply of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines will be limited worldwide, it is essential to prioritize vaccination based on scientific evidence.Although several frameworks and studies on vaccine distribution have been published, no published systematic review has evaluated the prioritization of the COVID-19 vaccine. Materials and Methods: We searched 4 different databases, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE for articles published between January 2019 and December 31, 2020. Studies were included if they contained the primary search terms “vaccine”, “COVID-19”, and “prioritization”. In addition, we manually included reports from national and international websites. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, older adults were the most frequently mentioned group, and healthcare workers (HCWs) were mentioned as the 1st priority group. HCWs and patients with comorbidities were the 2nd and 3rd most frequently mentioned groups in the reviewed papers. Reducing severe COVID-19 was the most frequently mentioned goal. Conclusion Since vaccination programs have been initiated in several countries, scientific evidence on vaccination prioritization is needed to increase our knowledge of general vaccine prioritization and improve vaccine acceptance. Our results showed that HCWs and older adults were the most frequently valued in studies.

Purpose: We investigated the association between social support, metabolic syndrome, and incident cardio-cerebrovascular disease (CCVD) in rural Koreans aged ≥50 years. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective study using the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study on Atherosclerosis Risk of Rural Areas in the Korean General Population (KoGES-ARIRANG) dataset. From the baseline of 5169 adults, 1682 participants were finally included according to the exclusion criteria. For outcomes, myocardial infarction, angina, and stroke were included. For independent variables, the social support score and metabolic syndrome were used. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression were performed to investigate the association among the variables. Paired t-test was conducted to analyze the longitudinal variation of social support scores. Results: During the 6.37 years of median follow-up, 137 participants developed CCVD. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of metabolic syndrome with persistently high social support was 2.175 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.479–3.119]. The aOR of metabolic syndrome with persistently low social support was 2.494 (95%CI: 1.141–5.452). The longitudinal variation of the social support score of persistently high social support group was increased significantly by 4.26±26.32. The score of the persistently low social support group was decreased by 1.34±16.87 with no statistical significance. Conclusion The presence of metabolic syndrome increases the likelihood of developing onset CCVD. Within the metabolic syndrome positive group, when social support was persistently low, the cohort developed more cardio-cerebrovascular disease compared to the persistently higher social support group. The social support score of the persistently low social support group could be improved through proper intervention. To prevent CCVD, metabolic syndrome components and low social support should be improved in the study participants.