Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccines (Sputnik V, AZD-1222, and Covaxin) side effects among healthcare workers in Birjand city, Iran

Prevalence and pattern of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination among adult population in Sokoto metropolis, northwest, Nigeria

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 still poses a major public health challenge worldwide and vaccination remains one of the major interventions to control the disease. Different types of vaccines approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) are currently in use across the world to protect against the disease. This study assessed the prevalence and pattern of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after receiving COVID-19 vaccine (the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine) among the adult population in Sokoto metropolis, North-west, Nigeria.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study among 230 adults in Sokoto metropolis who received COVID-19 vaccines. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire administered via personal phone calls to respondents who were selected via a systematic sampling technique. For data analysis, IBM SPSS version 25.0 was used.

RESULTS

The majority of the participants [183 (79.7%)] experienced AEFI. The most common adverse events were body weakness [157 (85%)], fever [111 (60.3%)] and headache [103 (56%)]. Up to half of the respondents that experienced AEFI said it occurred within minutes and a few hours, whereas 75 (40.8%) said it was within 2-3 days. Up to 66.3% of the adverse reactions were mild and lasted between a few hours (37.5%) and one day (31.5%); however, 15.2% of the respondents had severe reactions of which 22.7% were admitted to a health facility. The development of AEFI was linked to the presence of an underlying medical condition (p = 0.001), a previous history of AEFI (p = 0.017), and a history of drug reaction (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The majority of respondents reported adverse events following vaccination with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine; body weakness, fever, and headache being the most common AEFIs. History of underlying medical condition as well as a history of adverse drug reactions were predictors of the development of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. Service providers at each COVID-19 vaccination point should always take the time to explain to vaccine recipients that adverse reactions are possible; however, they should reassure them that most ARs resolve within a few hours to a few days.

Adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: A comprehensive analysis of spontaneous reporting data in Ghana

Vaccines are important public health tools and formed part of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Five COVID-19 vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization in Ghana and deployed during the pandemic. Early phase trials of the vaccines were mostly not conducted in Africans. This study examines safety data during their deployment under real-life conditions in Ghana. This study analysed secondary data on COVID-19 vaccine-related adverse events following immunization (AEFI) reported to the Ghana Food and Drugs Authority (GFDA) between March 2021 and June 2022 using STATA. AEFIs were coded with their Preferred Terms using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, version 24.0. Statistical tests examined associations between demographic characteristics, vaccine types, seriousness, and AEFI outcomes. Binary logistic regression model assessed factors associated with serious AEFIs, while the GFDA's Joint COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Review Committee provided causality assessments of serious AEFIs. Overall cumulative incidence of AEFIs was about 25 per 100,000 persons vaccinated. Across the five vaccines, majority of the AEFIs reported were not serious (98.7%) with higher incidences in those below 50 years (74.0%) and females (51.2%). The most common AEFIs recorded were headache (52.9%), pains (44.4%), pyrexia (35.1%), chills (16.7%) and injection site pain (15.6%). Relative to those 50 years and above, the odds of serious AEFI were 60% less among those aged <30 years (aOR = 0.40, CI: [0.19, 0.86], p = 0.019). However, a causality assessment of the 57 serious AEFIs indicated only 8 (14%) were vaccine product-related. There was a low incidence of AEFIs following deployment of the vaccines in Ghana with a much lower incidence of serious AEFIs. Informing the public about the safety of the vaccines and potential side effects may increase trust and acceptance, decreasing hesitancy in current and future vaccination programmes.

COVID-19: Post infection implications in different age groups, mechanism, diagnosis, effective prevention, treatment, and recommendations

SARS-CoV-2 is a highly contagious pathogen that predominantly caused the COVID-19 pandemic. The persistent effects of COVID-19 are defined as an inflammatory or host response to the virus that begins four weeks after initial infection and persists for an undetermined length of time. Chronic effects are more harmful than acute ones thus, this review explored the long-term effects of the virus on various human organs, including the pulmonary, cardiovascular, and neurological, reproductive, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, endocrine, and lymphoid systems and found that SARS-CoV-2 adversely affects these organs of older adults. Regarding diagnosis, the RT-PCR is a gold standard method of diagnosing COVID-19; however, it requires specialized equipment and personnel for performing assays and a long time for results production. Therefore, to overcome these limitations, artificial intelligence employed in imaging and microfluidics technologies is the most promising in diagnosing COVID-19. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies are the most effective treatment for reducing the persistent impacts of COVID-19 by providing immunity to post-COVID-19 patients by reducing cytokine release syndrome, improving the T cell response, and increasing the circulation of activated natural killer and CD8 T cells in blood and tissues, which ultimately reduces fever, nausea, fatigue, and muscle weakness and pain. Vaccines such as inactivated viral, live attenuated viral, protein subunit, viral vectored, mRNA, DNA, or nanoparticle vaccines significantly reduce the adverse long-term virus effects in post-COVID-19 patients; however, no vaccine was reported to provide lifetime protection against COVID-19; consequently, protective measures such as physical separation, mask use, and hand cleansing are promising strategies. This review provides a comprehensive knowledge of the persistent effects of COVID-19 on people of varying ages, as well as diagnosis, treatment, vaccination, and future preventative measures against the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Reported COVID-19 vaccines side effects among Algerian athletes: a comparison between inactivated virus, adenoviral vector, and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines

OBJECTIVES

Many types of COVID19 vaccines are administered globally, yet there is not much evidence regarding their side effects among athletes. This study evaluated the selfreported postvaccination side effects of inactivated virus, adenoviral vector, and mRNA COVID19 vaccines among Algerian athletes.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out in Algeria between March 01 and 4 April 2022. The study used a validated questionnaire with twenty-five multiple-choice items covering the participants' anamnestic characteristics, post-vaccination side effects (their onset and duration), post-vaccination medical care, and risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 273 athletes completed the survey. Overall, (54.6%) of the athletes reported at least one local side effect, while (46.9%) reported at least one systemic side effect. These side effects were more prevalent among the adenoviral vector group compared to the inactivated virus and mRNA groups. The most common local side effect was injection site pain (29.9%), while Fever (30.8%) was the most prevalent systemic side effect. The age group of 31-40 years, allergy, previous infection with COVID-19, and the first dose of vaccines were associated with an increased risk of side effects for all groups of COVID-19 vaccines. Logistic regression analysis further revealed that compared to males, the incidence of reported side effects was significantly higher in females (odd ratio (OR) = 1.16; P = 0.015*) only for the adenoviral vector vaccine group. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of athletes group of high dynamic/moderate static or high dynamic /high static components suffered from post-vaccination side effects compared to the group of athletes with high dynamic/low static components (OR = 14.68 and 14.71; P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The adenoviral vector vaccines have the highest rate of side effects, followed by the inactivated virus and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. COVID‑19 vaccines were well-tolerated among Algerian athletes and there were no reports of serious side effects. Nevertheless, further long-term follow-up study with a larger sample size of athletes (from different types and sports categories) is warranted to establish the long-term safety of the COVID-19 vaccine.

COVID-19 vaccines breakthrough infection and adverse reactions in medical students: a nationwide survey in Iran

INTRODUCTION

There are different types of COVID-19 vaccines approved worldwide. Since no national studies focus on vaccine-related adverse reactions and breakthrough cases, this study aimed to investigate the rate of adverse events and COVID-19 infection in medical students in Iran.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included Iranian medical students who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. The medical team gathered the demographic characteristics, comorbidities, type of vaccine, adverse events following vaccination, and history of COVID-19 infection data through a phone interview. The frequency of adverse events and breakthrough infection was stratified by vaccine type (ChAdOx1-S, Gam-COVID-Vac, and BIBP-CorV).

RESULTS

A total of 3,591 medical students enrolled in this study, of which 57.02% were females, with a mean age of 23.31 + 4.87. A PCR-confirmed and suspicious-for-COVID-19 breakthrough infection rate of 4.51 and 7.02% was detected, respectively. There was no significant relation between breakthrough infection and gender, BMI, blood groups, and comorbidities. However, there was a significant difference in breakthrough infection rate among different types of vaccines (p = 0.001) and history of COVID-19 infection (p = 0.001). A total of 16 participants were hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection after vaccination for reasons such as dyspnea, abnormal imaging, or decreased oxygen saturation. No severe infection or death was observed in the studied population.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination prevented severe COVID-19 infection, although a high breakthrough infection rate was evident among Iranian medical students during the Delta variant's peak. Vaccine effectiveness may be fragile during emerging new variants and in high-exposure settings. Moreover, adverse events are rare, and the benefits of vaccination outweigh the side effects. However, many limitations challenged this study, and the results should be cautious.

Immunogenicity and adverse events of the COVID-19 vaccines in healthy and individuals with autoimmune diseases in an Iranian population

Introduction: Recent studies have proposed various COVID-19 vaccines to control the disease and protect susceptible individuals. However, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in various populations are not well identified yet. Therefore, this study aimed to elucidate the efficacy and safety of the BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in healthy subjects and patients with autoimmune diseases.Methods: Study population included 121 healthy subjects and 100 patients with autoimmune diseases. Immunization was performed based on the national vaccination protocols. Of the 221 volunteers, 201 subjects received Sinopharm and 20 cases were vaccinated with Oxford-AstraZeneca. During a 1-year follow-up, the immunogenicity was measured by ELISA before primary vaccination and 1 to 3 months after secondary immunization. Side effects were studied before entering the study and 1 week after the second dose.Results: Vaccination had a positive impact on the induction of immunogenic response (p < .0001). The rates of seropositive vaccine responses were 80% and 75% in subjects vaccinated with the Sinopharm and Oxford-AstraZeneca, respectively. The neutralizing antibody values were significantly higher in subjects with autoimmune diseases than those without autoimmunity (p < .05). The rate of adverse events were 38% and 42% in subjects vaccinated with the Sinopharm and Oxford-AstraZeneca, respectively. The rates of immunogenic responses induced with the Sinopharm and Oxford-AstraZeneca were, respectively, 76% and 81.5% in seropositive subjects, while they were 63.8% and 79.1% in seronegative subjects vaccinated with the Sinopharm and Oxford-AstraZeneca, respectively. Individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed a significant reduction in the value of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies compared with seronegative subjects (p < .01-.05). Seropositive individuals vaccinated with the Sinopharm had significantly higher the percentages of vaccine-related adverse events than seronegative persons (p < .05). There was no significant difference between seronegative and seropositive individuals vaccinated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca.Conclusion: Our findings revealed that the Sinopharm and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines are effective in the production of neutralizing antibodies in healthy subjects and patients with autoimmune disorders undergoing immunosuppressive therapies without considerable reactogenicity.

Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in the middle eastern population

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused severe worldwide health concerns since its first description as the SARS-COV-2 virus in December 2019. The wide dissemination of this virus, together with the lack of treatment, prompted vaccine development within a short period of time to elicit a protective immunity against COVID-19. Due to their rapid development, potential subsequent side effects of COVID-19 vaccines were overlooked, which might lead to many health concerns. This is especially true for patients at a greater risk of harm from COVID-19, such as pregnant women, children, and patients with pre-existing chronic diseases. In this review, we provide a summary of common to rare side effects of administrated COVID-19 vaccines in a Middle Eastern population. We have found that the distinction between side effects from COVID-19 vaccines in terms of frequency and severity is attributed to the differences in study populations, gender, and age. Pain at the injection site, fever, headache, fatigue, and muscle pain were the most common reported side effects. Vaccinated subjects with previous COVID-19 infection exhibited an equivalent neutralizing response after just one dose compared to two doses of vaccine. Consequently, individuals who experienced more side effects had significantly higher antibody levels. This indicates that having better immunity correlates with higher antibody levels, leading to a higher frequency of vaccine side effects. Individuals with underlying comorbidities, particularly having known allergies and with illnesses such as diabetes and cancer, might be more prone to post-vaccination side effects. Studies of a high-risk population in Middle Eastern countries are limited. Future studies should be considered to determine long-term side effects, side effects after booster doses, and side effect differences in cases of heterologous and homologous vaccination for better understanding and proper handling of high-risk populations and patients who experience these side effects.

Sputnik V vaccine perception and hesitancy in a tertiary health care centre transformed to Covid-19 vaccine centre: A case study

BACKGROUND

Sputnik V vaccine was approved in India in April 2021 to tackle the pandemic situation. However, there was lack of information on the effects, side effects, and peoples' perception toward it. The present case study aims to evaluate the vaccine coverage, the awareness, and perception toward it and compare the adverse effects after each dose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A unique case study was conducted in a sample of 200 participants comparing 2 groups of population who took first and second dose of Sputnik V vaccine during June to November 2021. The data were collected by a prevalidated questionnaire, follow-up telephonic interviews focused on knowledge, awareness, side effects of vaccine, and analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentages, mean, and standard deviation.

RESULTS

The vaccine coverage for first and second doses were 98.3% and 96.5%, respectively. The mean age of the participant was 29 + 9.5 years and majority 68.5% were males. Seventeen percent experienced the S/E for the vaccine with 9.5% from second dose. There were usual side effects; however, it was more after second dose of vaccination. Friends and healthcare workers were the main source of information (33.5%) and motivation (43%). Majority (73.5%) were aware of the side effects. Forty three point five percent took vaccine attributed to its protective role, availability, and peer pressure. There was no significant association between type of doses and side effects of the respective doses of vaccine.

CONCLUSION

The vaccine coverage was >90%. Participants were well aware of the vaccine and side effects which were more in second dose. However, there was no significant difference between the two doses of vaccine.

Comparison of Time to Report the Side Effects after AstraZeneca and Sinopharm Vaccinations in Users of the COVID-19 Symptom Study App: A Survey in South Iran

Background

Concerns about the side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been raised nationwide. We aimed to compare the time to report the side effects of the Oxford-AstraZeneca and Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

Information on side effects of AstraZeneca and Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccines was obtained from the COVID-19 Symptom Study App affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Science during 2021. A COX regression model with an adjusted Hazard Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval; HR (95% C.I) was reported at the significance level of < 0.05.

Results

4478 and 5555 participants received the AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccines, respectively; more age, history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, first vaccine dose, hypertension, and hypertension with cardiovascular disease were seen in the AstraZeneca group (P < 0.05 for all). However, the AstraZeneca group had lower immune deficiency and time to report the side effects (P < 0.05 for both). There was significantly less time to pain HR(95% C.I.); 0.50 (0.47-0.52), vertigo 0.65 (0.61-0.69), weakness 0.41 (0.38-0.44), headache 0.43 (0.39-0.74), anorexia 0.31 (0.28-0.34), nausea 0.56 (0.51-0.62), severer allergy 0.71 (0.63-0.81), general inflammation 0.27 (0.23-0.31), fever > 38oC 0.12 (0.1-0.15), eye inflammation 0.45 (0.39-0.52), diarrhea 0.85 (0.73-0.99), blurred vision 0.73 (0.61-0.86), injection site redness 0.32 (0.26-0.39), fatigue/paleness 0.53 (0.50-0.57), joint pain 0.55 (0.41-0.73), auxiliary gland inflation 0.59 (0.43-0.80), convulsions 0.30 (0.17-0.52), and severe side effects 0.3 (0.27-0.33) in the AstraZeneca group; However, skin rash 0.77 (0.57-1.05) and hospitalization 0.72 (0.21-2.55) were the same.

Conclusion

Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine recipients reported longer times to report vaccine-related side effects than AstraZeneca; due to the lack of adverse effects like hospitalization, vaccination should continue to control the pandemic; more real-population studies are needed on the long-term effects of vaccination against COVID-19.

Adverse Events among Beneficiaries who Received a Dose of Sputnik V Vaccine at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Coastal Karnataka, India

Introduction

Vaccination has played a vital role in containing the COVID-19 pandemic. Sputnik V was the third vaccine approved for emergency use in India. The objectives of the present study were to document the adverse events following Sputnik V vaccination and the factors associated with adverse events.

Methodology

This cross-sectional study was conducted during September and October 2021 in a teaching hospital of Karnataka. Ethics approval and CTRI registration were obtained before collecting the data. All persons receiving at least one dose of vaccine were invited to participate and baseline information was collected after written informed consent. They were contacted telephonically to enquire about the adverse events. Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using SPSS Version 23 to describe percentages and proportions.

Results

The median age of 2532 participants was 31 (IQR 25-39) years and 60.4% were males. Minor adverse events were seen among 29.4% participants. Most common symptoms with first dose were fever, vaccination site tenderness, myalgia and headache, and with second dose were fever, myalgia, headache, and vaccination site tenderness. No severe adverse events were reported in our study. The adverse events were seen more among females (P < 0.05) and with the first dose (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Most common adverse events were similar to symptoms suggested by the vaccine manufacturers with fever being the most common one. A follow-up after a longer lag time may be recommended to enquire whether the vaccinees developed serious adverse events.

COVID-19 Therapeutics: Use, Mechanism of Action, and Toxicity (Vaccines, Monoclonal Antibodies, and Immunotherapeutics)

SARS-CoV-2 emerged in December 2019 and led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts to develop therapeutics have led to innovations such as mRNA vaccines and oral antivirals. Here we provide a narrative review of the biologic therapeutics used or proposed to treat COVID-19 during the last 3 years. This paper, along with its companion that covers xenobiotics and alternative remedies, is an update to our 2020 paper. Monoclonal antibodies prevent progression to severe disease, are not equally effective across variants, and are associated with minimal and self-limited reactions. Convalescent plasma has side effects like monoclonal antibodies, but with more infusion reactions and less efficacy. Vaccines prevent progression for a larger part of the population. DNA and mRNA vaccines are more effective than protein or inactivated virus vaccines. After mRNA vaccines, young men are more likely to have myocarditis in the subsequent 7 days. After DNA vaccines, those aged 30-50 are very slightly more likely to have thrombotic disease. To all vaccines we discuss, women are slightly more likely to have an anaphylactic reaction than men, but the absolute risk is small.

Adverse events following immunization (AEFI): COVID-19 vaccine dose and characteristics in Central Java, Indonesia

Introduction

Vaccination is an effort to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Although vaccines can be effective prevention, they can have potential side effects, or adverse events following immunization (AEFI). CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, BNTb262-BioNTech, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1NCoV-19 were vaccines used in Indonesia when this study was conducted. This study aimed to analyze the factors associated with AEFI for the COVID-19 vaccines for each dose in the community.

Methods

This study used a cross-sectional design. The study was conducted in Central Java Province, Indonesia from August to October 2021. The variables included respondent characteristics, COVID-19 infection history, COVID-19 vaccine AEFI, dose, and type. Data collection was performed through questionnaires and data was analyzed by a logistic regression test.

Results

The percentage of AEFI was 21.1% after the first dose, 14.1% after the second dose, and 83.9% after the third dose of the vaccine. The factors associated with higher odds of COVID-19 vaccine AEFI were different for each dose, as follows: for the first dose: age group >45 years (p=0.009; OR=2.837; 95%CI: 1.301-6.187) and overweight (p=0.007; OR=3.323; 95%CI: 1.242-8.689); for the second dose: overweight (p=0.007; OR=9.118; 95%CI: 1.827-45.5), female sex (p=0.011; OR=2.885; 95%CI: 1.274-6.531), age group >45 years (p=0.017; OR=3.257; 95%CI: 1.24-8.555) and prior episode of COVID-19 (p=0.044; OR=2.459; 95%CI: 1.026-5.893); and for the third dose: female sex (p=0.040; OR=3.650; 95%CI: 1.062-12.550).

Conclusions

The factors that were associated with AEFI of COVID-19 vaccine were sex, age, nutritional status and prior history of COVID-19.

Side Effects Comparison of Coronavirus Vaccines Among Healthcare Workers in Shoushtar, Iran

Objective

Vaccination is one of the effective ways to fight against COVID-19 disease. Various vaccines have been designed during the coronavirus pandemic. Each of the used vaccines has beneficial effects as well as side effects. Healthcare workers were among the first vaccinated persons against COVID-19 in different countries. The current study aims to compare the side effects of AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, Bharat, and Sputnik V on healthcare workers in Iran.

Methods

This descriptive study was conducted from July 2021 to January 2022 on 1639 healthcare workers who received the COVID-19 vaccines. Data were collected using a checklist that contained questions related to systemic, local, and severe side effects of the vaccine. The collected data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, and trend chi-square. P < .05 was regarded as a significant statistical difference.

Results

The most commonly injected vaccines were Sinopharm (41.80%), Sputnik V (36.65%), AstraZeneca (17.75%), and Bharat (3.80%), respectively. At least 37.5% of participants reported one complication. The most common side effects after 72 hours of the first and second doses were as follows: injection site pain, fatigue, fever, myalgia, headache, and chill. Overall complication rates were reported as follows: AstraZeneca (91.4%), Sputnik V (65.9%), Sinopharm (56.8%), and Bharat (98.4%). Bharat showed the highest overall side effects, while Sinopharm had the lowest overall side effects. Also, our results indicated that individuals with a previous history of positive COVID-19 infection had a higher rate of overall complications.

Conclusions

The majority of participants did not show life-threatening side effects after the injection of 1 of the 4 studied vaccines. Since it was well accepted and tolerable by the participants, it can be used widely and safely against SARS-CoV-2.

Multiple sclerosis and COVID-19: A retrospective study in Iran

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies suggested a higher rate of COVID-19 infection in patients with multiple sclerosis than in the general population, and limited studies addressed the impact of COVID-19 and its vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis in Iran. We decided to investigate the factors associated with COVID-19 infection, the effects and side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

We used the data of the patients with multiple sclerosis registered in a referral clinic in Kerman, one of the large cities in Iran (a population of 537,000 inhabitants), to explore the association between demographic variables, the history of COVID-19 vaccination, and the clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 367 participants in this study, 88.3% received the COVID-19 vaccine, 35.4% were confirmed COVID-19 cases, and the incidence of COVID-19 was much higher before vaccination (24.5% before vaccination versus 10.1% after vaccination). The multivariable logistic regression model showed that male gender (OR = 2.64, 95% confidence interval: 1.21, 5.74) and current employment (OR = 3.04, 95% confidence interval: 1.59, 5.80) were associated with an increased risk of COVID-19. The only factor associated with the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination was the type of vaccine (AstraZeneca).

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that the vaccination protected MS cases considerably against COVID-19. In addition, the side effects of the vaccines were not noticeably high in these cases as well. Among all COVID-19 vaccines, AstraZeneca had the most common side effects, so people must be aware of them before vaccination. The male gender and employment were the most important variables in the prevalence of COVID-19 in patients with multiple sclerosis in our study.

Short-term Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines (Astrazeneca, Sputnik-V, and Sinopharm) in Health Care Workers: A Cross-Sectional Study in Iran

Background: The occurrence of side effects of vaccines plays an important role in their acceptance by people. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines (Sputnik-V, AstraZeneca, and Sinopharm) in Neyshabur health care workers (HCWs). Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed to evaluate the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among the HCWs of the Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences from July 31, 2021, to September 6, 2021, by using a self-report checklist. We sent our checklist via an internet link to collect data such as demographic data of participants, previous COVID-19 infection (PCR+), vaccine information and side effects of vaccines. Mean, median and standard deviation were used to determine descriptive statistics and a logistic regression model was also used to determine the relationship between the type of vaccine and its side effects. Results: 317 participants filled out the checklist; among them 47% (N= 149), 21.14% (N= 67), and 31.86% (N= 101) have been vaccinated with Sputnik-V, AstraZeneca, and Sinopharm, respectively. The percentage of side effects after the first dose was 62.15% (N= 197). The Percentage of local side effects was 76% (N= 241) and systemic side effects were 29.36% (N= 95). The most common side effects in all three vaccines were injection site pain (75.08%, N= 240), muscle pain (62.46%, N=198) and headache (52.05%, N=165). Also, the odds ratio of injection site pain, chill and sweating in those who received the AstraZeneca vaccine was 3.9(95% CI, 1.7-9.3), 3.7 (95% CI, 1.8-7.3), and 3.2 (95% CI, 1.7-63), of those who received the Sputnik V vaccine (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: The most common side effects among our participants were injection site pain, muscle pain, and headache. Most of the post-vaccination side effects are mild to moderate in severity and self-limited. Reported side effects were more common in recipients with AstraZeneca than in those with Sputnik-V and Sinopharm.

Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines Primer Doses: Experience of Saudi Healthcare Workers Participating in CoVaST-SA

BACKGROUND

Side effects emerging after COVID-19 vaccines may adversely impact public confidence in vaccines. Therefore, this study was designed to explore the short-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccines as a part of the COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Tracking (CoVaST) study.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out to collect data from healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia. The study was initiated between June and December 2021. A validated questionnaire was used in this study consisting of four categories, including demographic characteristics and medical anamnesis of the participants, COVID-19-associated anamnesis, and side effects of vaccine uptake.

RESULTS

The study included 1039 participants, of which 70.2% were females, and their median age was 34. About 82.9% and 52.3% of the participants reported a minimum of both one local and systemic side effect, respectively. Females, young participants (≤34 years old), and non-obese participants had more potential to disclose post-vaccination side effects than their counterparts. Heterologous schedules and viral vector-based vaccines were linked with a greater rate of systemic side effects, whereas homologous vaccination schedules and mRNA-based vaccines were linked with a greater rate of local side effects.

CONCLUSION

Future studies on COVID-19 vaccines should focus on the role of BMI, previous infection, and vaccination schedule in terms of vaccine safety and reactogenicity.

Signs, Symptoms, and Side-Effects Presented by Different Types of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Prospective Cohort Study

The concern about post-COVID-19 vaccine complications still remains. In addition, the evidence on Sinopharm, Sputnik V, Covaxin, and, in particular, COVIran Barekat, as well as comparisons between them by dosage after post-vaccination, is scarce. This study aimed to investigate and compare the prevalence of self-reported post-vaccination signs and symptoms following the first and second doses of different types of COVID-19 vaccines. Research design and methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted on more than 1500 health professionals who had received at least one dose of any type of Sputnik V, Sinopharm, Oxford AstraZeneca, Covaxin, and COVIran Barekat vaccines in Iran. The survey questionnaire was sent to participants online, 28 days after receiving each dose of the vaccine. Results: About 73% of health professionals reported at least one post-vaccination sign or symptom, developing mostly within the first 12 h (69.9%) and lasting up to 12 h (59.0%). Pain and tenderness at the injection site, fever, and muscle pain were the most common post-vaccination signs and symptoms in all vaccines, which were significantly higher in the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine (p < 0.001) for both the first and second doses. The incidence rate of all post-vaccination signs and symptoms was significantly higher in the first dose than in the second dose (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine showed the highest incidence rate, onset, and lasting time of signs and symptoms in both doses; however, they were not life-threatening. The onset time of signs and symptoms was significantly higher for the COVIran Barekat and Oxford AstraZeneca vaccines in both the first and second doses.

Intranasal delivery of a chimpanzee adenovirus vector expressing a pre-fusion spike (BV-AdCoV-1) protects golden Syrian hamsters against SARS-CoV-2 infection

We evaluated the immunogenicity and protective ability of a chimpanzee replication-deficient adenovirus vectored COVID-19 vaccine (BV-AdCoV-1) expressing a stabilized pre-fusion SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein in golden Syrian hamsters. Intranasal administration of BV-AdCoV-1 elicited strong humoral and cellular immunity in the animals. Furthermore, vaccination prevented weight loss, reduced SARS-CoV-2 infectious virus titers in the lungs as well as lung pathology and provided protection against SARS-CoV-2 live challenge. In addition, there was no vaccine-induced enhanced disease nor immunopathological exacerbation in BV-AdCoV-1-vaccinated animals. Furthermore, the vaccine induced cross-neutralizing antibody responses against the ancestral strain and the B.1.617.2, Omicron(BA.1), Omicron(BA.2.75) and Omicron(BA.4/5) variants of concern. These results demonstrate that BV-AdCoV-1 is potentially a promising candidate vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to curtail pandemic spread in humans.

Analysis and comparison of anti-RBD neutralizing antibodies from AZD-1222, Sputnik V, Sinopharm and Covaxin vaccines and its relationship with gender among health care workers

Background

Vaccine efficiency has a significant role in the public perception of vaccination. The current study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines (AZD-1222, Sputnik-V, Sinopharm, and Covaxin) and the effect of gender on vaccine efficacy. We evaluated the efficacy of these vaccines among 214 health care employees in Iran. Blood samples were taken from all participants on day 0 and 14 days after the second dose. Humoral responses were evaluated by the PT-SARS-CoV-2-Neutralizing-Ab-96.

Results

The frequency of immunized individuals in the Sputnik V and AZD-1222 groups was 91% and 86%, respectively. This rate was 61% and 67% for Sinopharm and Covaxin vaccines. A comparison of the results obtained from the effectiveness of the vaccines between female and male groups did not demonstrate a significant difference.

Conclusion

According to the results, Sputnik V and AZD-1222 vaccines were more effective than Sinopharm and Covaxin vaccines. Moreover, the effectiveness of these vaccines is not related to gender.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12979-022-00303-x.

Inactivated vaccine Covaxin/BBV152: A systematic review

We systematically reviewed and summarized studies focusing on Bharat Biotech’s Whole Virion Inactivated Corona Virus Antigen BBV152 (Covaxin), which is India’s indigenous response to fighting the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Studies were searched for data on the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety profile of BBV152. All relevant studies published up to March 22, 2022, were screened from major databases, and 25 studies were eventually inducted into the systematic review. The studies focused on the virus antigen (6 μg) adjuvanted with aluminium hydroxide gel and/or Imidazo quinolin gallamide (IMDG), aTLR7/8 agonist. Pre-clinical, phase I, and II clinical trials showed appreciable immunogenicity. Both neutralizing and binding antibody titers were significant and T cell responses were Th1-biased. Phase III trials on the 6 μg +Algel-IMDG formulation showed a 93.4% efficacy against severe COVID-19. Data from the trials revealed an acceptable safety profile with mostly mild-moderate local and systemic adverse events. No serious adverse events or fatalities were seen, and most studies reported milder and lesser adverse events with Covaxin when compared with other vaccines, especially Oxford-Astra Zeneca’s AZD1222 (Covishield). The immunogenicity performance of Covaxin, which provided significant protection only after the second dose, was mediocre and it was consistently surpassed by Covishield. One study reported adjusted effectiveness against symptomatic infection to be just 50% at 2 weeks after the second dose. Nonetheless, appreciable results were seen in previously infected individuals administered both doses. There was some evidence of coverage against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants. However, neither Covaxin nor Covishield showed sufficient protection against the Omicron variant. Two studies reported super-additive results on mixing Covaxin with Covishield. Further exploration of heterologous prime-boost vaccination with a combination of an inactivated vaccine and an adenoviral vector-based vaccine for tackling future variants may be beneficial.

The Actual Status of Hospitals as COVID-19 Vaccination Clinics in China and Safety Monitoring of Inactivated Vaccine: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

The outbreak has had a devastating impact, and efforts are underway to speed up vaccination. The study's objective was to describe the clinical characteristics of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination clinic in the Second People's Hospital of Fujian Province, China. Meanwhile, we monitored all the vaccine recipients to evaluate adverse reactions.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was done at the COVID-19 Vaccination Clinic, the Second People's Hospital of Fujian Province, China. We systematically collected Clinical data from the COVID-19 vaccination clinic between March 11 and November 11, 2021, including the type of vaccine, number of doses, gender, age, educational level, occupational category, adverse reactions, etc. Investigators will contact vaccine recipients by means of phone call or WeChat message to record the negative responses. Last, this report covers data through 8 mo, so it will be better to Evaluate the Safety of 2 inactivated COVID-19 vaccines from China (BBIBP-CorV [Beijing Institute of Biological Products, Beijing, China] and CoronaVac [Sinovac Life Sciences, Beijing, China]).

RESULTS

The results indicated that the Second People's Hospital of Fujian Province received a total of 64,602 COVID-19 vaccines from March 11 to November 11, 2021, including 34,331 (53.14%) first doses, 29,245 (45.27%) second doses, and 1026 (1.59%) third doses. This study found the highest proportion in other personnel (38.69% at the first dose, 38.75% at the second dose, and 2.44% at the third dose), who were mainly retirees. People with higher levels of education are more likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 during the early stages of vaccine rollout. In terms of age stratification, the highest proportion was found among people aged 18-49 (BBIBP-CorV: first dose 61%, second dose 62.6%, and third dose 76.8%; CoronaVac: first dose 66.1%, double dose 63.6%, and third dose 75.5%), followed by those over 60. The common adverse reactions were mainly local and systemic, and there were some differences between the 2 inactivated vaccines (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to analyze the actual status of hospitals as COVID-19 vaccination clinics in China. The hospital has focused on vaccinating citizens and the initial rollout of vaccines to ensure any safety issues are identified. More citizens are willing to vaccinate in hospitals because of the uncertain safety of the available vaccines and adverse reactions. The good news is that vaccine-related severe adverse events have not been found in the hospital vaccination clinic. The Safety of BBIBP-CorV and CoronaVac is relatively high.

Sputnik-V reactogenicity and immunogenicity in the blood and mucosa: a prospective cohort study

Sputnik-V (Gam-COVID-Vac) is a heterologous, recombinant adenoviral (rAdv) vector-based, COVID-19 vaccine now used in > 70 countries. Yet there is a shortage of data on this vaccine's performance in diverse populations. Here, we performed a prospective cohort study to assess the reactogenicity and immunologic outcomes of Sputnik-V vaccination in Kazakhstan. COVID-19-free participants (n = 82 at baseline) were followed at day 21 after Sputnik-V dose 1 (rAd5) and dose 2 (rAd26). Self-reported local and systemic adverse events were captured using questionnaires. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected to perform SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic and immunologic assays. We observed that most of the reported adverse events were mild-to-moderate injection site or systemic reactions, no severe or potentially life-threatening conditions were reported, and dose 1 appeared to be more reactogenic than dose 2. The seroconversion rate was 97% post-dose 1, remaining the same post-dose 2. The proportion of participants with detectable virus neutralization was 83% post-dose 1, increasing to 98% post-dose 2, with the largest relative increase observed in participants without prior COVID-19 exposure. Dose 1 boosted nasal S-IgG and S-IgA, while the boosting effect of dose 2 on mucosal S-IgG, but not S-IgA, was only observed in subjects without prior COVID-19. Systemically, vaccination reduced serum levels of growth regulated oncogene (GRO), which correlated with an elevation in blood platelet count. Overall, Sputnik-V dose 1 elicited both blood and mucosal SARS-CoV-2 immunity, while the immune boosting effect of dose 2 was minimal. Thus, adjustments to the current vaccine dosing regimen are necessary to optimize immunization efficacy and cost-effectiveness. While Sputnik-V reactogenicity is similar to that of other COVID-19 vaccines, the induced alterations to the GRO/platelet axis warrant investigation of the vaccine's effects on systemic immunology.

A Comparative Analysis of a Self-Reported Adverse Events Analysis after Receiving One of the Available SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Schemes in Ecuador

The COVID-19 pandemic has put a lot of pressure on health systems worldwide. Mass vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has reduced morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite their safety profiles, vaccines, as with any other medical product, can cause adverse events. Yet, in countries with poor epidemiological surveillance and monitoring systems, reporting vaccine-related adverse events is a challenge. The objective of this study was to describe self-reported vaccine adverse events after receiving one of the available COVID-19 vaccine schemes in Ecuador. A cross-sectional analysis based on an online, self-reported, 32-item questionnaire was conducted in Ecuador from 1 April to 15 July 2021. Participants were invited by social media, radio, and TV to voluntarily participate in our study. A total of 6654 participants were included in this study. Furthermore, 38.2% of the participants reported having at least one comorbidity. Patients received AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Sinovac vaccines, and these were distributed 38.4%, 31.1%, and 30.5%, respectively. Overall, pain or swelling at the injection site 17.2% (n = 4500) and headache 13.3% (n = 3502) were the most reported adverse events. Women addressed events supposedly attributable to vaccination or immunization [ESAVIs] (66.7%), more often than men (33.2%). After receiving the first dose of any available COVID-19 vaccine, a total of 19,501 self-reported ESAVIs were informed (87.0% were mild, 11.5% moderate, and 1.5% severe). In terms of the vaccine type and brand, the most reactogenic vaccine was AstraZeneca with 57.8%, followed by Pfizer (24.9%) and Sinovac (17.3%). After the second dose, 6776 self-reported ESAVIs were reported (87.1% mild, 10.9% moderate, and 2.1% severe). AstraZeneca vaccine users reported a higher proportion of ESAVIs (72.2%) in comparison to Pfizer/BioNTech (15.9%) and Sinovac Vaccine (11.9%). Swelling at the injection site, headache, muscle pain, and fatigue were the most common ESAVIs for the first as well as second doses. In conclusion, most ESAVIs were mild. AstraZeneca users were more likely to report adverse events. Participants without a history of COVID-19 infection, as well as those who received the first dose, were more prone to report ESAVIs.

Risk-based cost-benefit analysis of alternative vaccines against COVID-19 in Brazil: Coronavac vs. Astrazeneca vs. Pfizer

We propose a probabilistic model to quantify the cost-benefit of mass Vaccination Scenarios (VSs) against COVID-19. Through this approach, we conduct a six-month simulation, from August 31st, 2021 to March 3rd, 2022, of nine VSs, i.e., the three primary vaccine brands in Brazil (CoronaVac, AstraZeneca and Pfizer), each with three different vaccination rates (2nd doses per week). Since each vaccine has different individual-level effectiveness, we measure the population-level benefit as the probability of reaching herd immunity (HI). We quantify and categorize the cost-benefit of VSs through risk graphs that show: (i) monetary cost vs. probability of reaching HI; and (ii) number of new deaths vs. probability of reaching HI. Results show that AstraZeneca has the best cost-benefit when prioritizing acquisition costs, while Pfizer is the most cost-beneficial when prioritizing the number of deaths. This work provides helpful information that can aid public health authorities in Brazil to better plan VSs. Furthermore, our approach is not restricted to Brazil, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the mentioned vaccine brands. Indeed, the method is flexible so that this study can be a valuable reference for future cost-benefit analyses in other countries and pandemics, especially in the early stages of vaccination, when data is scarce and uncertainty is high.

Side Effects of COVID-19 Inactivated Virus vs. Adenoviral Vector Vaccines: Experience of Algerian Healthcare Workers

Healthcare workers were prioritized in vaccination campaigns globally because they are exposed to the highest risk of contamination by SARS-CoV-2. This study evaluated the self-reported post-vaccination side effects of inactivated (BBIBP-CorV and CoronaVac) and adenoviral vector-based (AZD1222, Gam-COVID-Vac and Ad26.COV2.S) vaccines among Algerian healthcare workers using a validated questionnaire. The final analysis included 721 healthcare workers, with a predominance of females (59.1%) and younger individuals 20–30 years old (39.4%). Less than half (49.1%) of the respondents reported at least one local side effect, while 53.8% reported at least one systemic side effect. These side effects were more prevalent among viral vector vaccinees than inactivated virus vaccinees. The most common local side effects were injection site pain (39%) and arm pain (25.4%), while fatigue (34.4%), fever (28.4%), headache (24.8%) and myalgia (22.7%) were the most prevalent systemic side effects. The side effects appeared earlier among inactivated virus vaccines recipients and generally lasted for 2 to 3 days for the two vaccinated groups. The risk factors associated with a higher prevalence of side effects included female gender, allergic individuals, individuals with regular medication, those who contracted the COVID-19 disease and those who received two doses for both inactivated and viral-based vaccines groups. Despite the higher prevalence of post-vaccination side effects among adenoviral vector vaccines recipients, both vaccines groups were equally effective in preventing symptomatic infections, and no life-threatening side effects were reported in either vaccine group.

Adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Iran

Background

Vaccination is a key intervention to prevent COVID-19. Many vaccines are administered globally, yet there is not much evidence regarding their safety and adverse effects. Iran also faces this challenge, especially as data regarding the Sputnik V vaccine is sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the adverse effects of the most commonly used vaccines in Iran.

Methods

Using a retrospective cohort study design, 6600 subjects aged 18 years or older who had received two doses of any of the three COVID-19 vaccines (Sinopharm, AstraZeneca, and Sputnik V) were selected using a random sampling method between March and August 2021. Subjects were asked about any adverse effects of the vaccines by trained interviewers via telephone interview. Vaccine-related adverse effects in individuals during the first 72 h and subsequently following both doses of the vaccines were determined. The demographic variables, type of administered vaccine, adverse effects, and history of the previous infection with COVID-19 were collected. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) and analytical statistics (Chi-squared and Wilcoxon tests) were performed at a 95% significance level using STATA software version 15 (STATA Corp, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

From 6600 participants, 4775 responded (response rate = 72.3%). Of the participants, 1460 (30.6%) received the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1564 (32.8%) received the Sinopharm vaccine and 1751 (36.7%) received the Sputnik V vaccine. 2653 participants (55.56%) reported adverse effects after the first dose and 1704 (35.7%) after the second dose. Sputnik V caused the most adverse effects with 1449 (82.7%) vaccine recipients reporting symptoms after the first or second dose, compared with 1030 (70.5%) for AstraZeneca and only 585 (37.4%) for the Sinopharm vaccine. The most common adverse effects after the first dose were fatigue (28.37%), chill/fever (26.86%), and skeletal pain (22.38%). These three adverse effects were the same for the second dose, although their prevalence was lower.

Conclusions

In this study, we demonstrate that the Sputnik V vaccine has the highest rate of adverse effects, followed by the AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines used in Iran are safe and there were no reports of serious adverse effects.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07411-5.

An overview on inactivated and live-attenuated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

After about 2 years since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), first infections were detected in Wuhan city of China in December 2019, which was followed by a worldwide pandemic with a record of 5.41 million deaths. Due to urgent need for the development of a safe and effective vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), attempts for producing efficient vaccines are inexhaustibly continuing. According to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO) on COVID-19 vaccine tracker and landscape, there are 149 vaccine candidates all over the world. Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as a conventional vaccine platform consist of whole virus particles grown in cell culture and inactivated by chemicals. Because of benefits such as antigenic similarity to real virion inducing humoral and cellular immune responses and ease for transport and storage, these vaccines, including the vaccines produced by Bharat Biotech, Sinopharm, and Sinovac, are in use at large scales. In this study, we have a review on inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that are passing their phase 3 and 4 clinical trials, population which was included in the trials, vaccine producers, the efficiency, adverse effects, and components of vaccines, and other vaccine features.

The Side Effects and Adverse Clinical Cases Reported after COVID-19 Immunization

COVID-19 remains a deadly disease that poses a serious threat to humanity. COVID-19 vaccines protect the public and limit viral spread. However, public acceptance is significantly dependent on the efficacy and side effects (SEs) of the vaccinations being produced. Four important mechanisms have been examined for COVID-19 vaccines: DNA-based, mRNA-based, protein-based, and inactivated viruses. Vaccination safety research was formerly limited to manufacturer-sponsored studies, but numerous additional cross-sectional survey-based studies conducted globally have contributed to the generation of vaccine-related safety data reports. Twenty-seven studies and twenty-four case reports published-up till 2021 were overviewed for the presentation of SEs and their severity. Injection site pain remained the most dominant localized SE, while headache and fatigue were the most prevalent systemic SEs. Most studies reported that all vaccinations were safe, with very little or no adverse effects, but the nature of SEs was reported to be more persistent in DNA- and mRNA-based vaccines, while inactivated viral vaccines were associated with longer-duration SEs. Overall, SEs were found to be more dominant in women and youngsters. Case reports of adverse reactions have also been documented, but there is still a need to find out their pathological linkage with the COVID-19 vaccination.

Extension and Severity of Self-Reported Side Effects of Seven COVID-19 Vaccines in Mexican Population

A few studies examined the comparative side effects of Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccines. We compared the extension and severity of self-reported side effects of seven COVID-19 vaccines [BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), CoronaVac (Sinovac Life Sciences), Gam-COVID-Vac (Gamaleya's Sputnik V), Ad5-nCoV (CanSinoBIO), and Ad26.CoV2.S (Johnson & Johnson/Janssen)] in the Mexican population. We also evaluated the association of type of vaccine, sex, age, comorbidity, and history of allergies to the extent and severity of side effects. This was a cross-sectional study carried out online between August 12 and September 3, 2021 in Mexico. The first inclusion criterion was to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and the second, being at least 18 years old. The survey link was distributed via multiple social media platforms. We questioned about the type of vaccine and symptoms based on short-term side effects reported in the literature. Side effect extension was classified as local, systemic, or both. We asked about the need to take medicine, stop activities/miss work, or seek medical attention. Then, a severity index was constructed based on responses. Descriptive and stepwise multivariate logistic ordinal regression analyses were used to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI for each outcome adjusted by potential confounders. The mean age was 38.9 ± 11.0 years (n = 4,024). Prevalence of at least one side effect varied between vaccines and by a number of doses. At dose 1, ChAdOx1 was the vaccine with the highest rate of at least one side effect (85%) followed by Gam-COVID-Vac (80%). Both were associated to greater extension (adjusted OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.16, 2.96 and adjusted OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.76, 3.29, respectively) and severity of side effects (adjusted OR 4.32, 95% CI 3.73, 5.00 and adjusted OR 3.00, 95% CI 2.28, 3.94, respectively). Young age (<50 years), female sex, comorbidity, and history of allergies were associated with greater extension and severity, independent of the type of vaccine and potential confounders. At dose 2, mRNA-1273 was the vaccine with the highest rate of side effects (88%) and the only vaccine associated to greater extension (adjusted OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.59, 5.21) and severity of symptoms (adjusted OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.82, 5.43). Continuous studies are necessary to acknowledge more post-vaccine symptoms in different populations.

Effect Analysis of “Four-Step” Training and Assessment Tool in the Prevention and Control of COVID-19

Purpose

To improve the ability of infection prevention and control (IPC) of medical staff during the COVID-19 epidemic period, the “four-step” mode of whole staff training and assessment was used.

Methods

During the period from March 9 to March 18, 2020, 5425 medical staff from The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were selected as the objects of this study. There are four stages in the training assessment mode. The first stage is the basic assessment stage; the second stage releases the electronic version of the knowledge point manual; the third stage conducts online exercises; the fourth stage conducts the final assessment.

Results

In the first stage, the participation rate of medical staff was 95.04%. In the fourth stage, the participation rate of medical staff was 98.01%. The average score of female medical staff in the first stage and the fourth stage was higher than that of males (P< 0.001). The average score of medical staff under 30 years old in the first stage and the fourth stage was higher than that of other age groups (P< 0.05). In the fourth stage, the correct rate of each part of exercises in the knowledge points of IPC was higher than that in the first stage (P< 0.001). In the two stages, the two parts of “COVID-19 prevention and control” and “multi-drug resistant bacteria prevention and control” had the highest accuracy, while the “disinfection and sterilization” and “infectious disease management” had the lowest accuracy (P< 0.001).

Conclusion

The “four-step” infection control training assessment mode has realized “full participation” and “effective training”, and the level of medical staff’s IPC has been significantly improved.