ABSTRACT
Background: The hypercoagulability and thrombotic tendency in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is multifactorial, driven mainly by inflammation, and endothelial dysfunction. Elevated levels of procoagulant microvesicles (MVs) and tissue factor-bearing microvesicles (TF-bearing MVs) have been observed in many diseases with thrombotic tendency. The current study aimed to measure the levels of procoagulant MVs and TF-bearing MVs in patients with COVID-19 and healthy controls and to correlate their levels with platelet counts, D-Dimer levels, and other proposed calculated inflammatory markers. Materials and Methods: Forty ICU-admitted patients with COVID-19 and 37 healthy controls were recruited in the study. Levels of procoagulant MVs and TF-bearing MVs in the plasma of the study population were measured using enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. Results: COVID-19 patients had significantly elevated levels of procoagulant MVs and TF-bearing MVs as compared with healthy controls (P<0.001). Procoagulant MVs significantly correlated with TF-bearing MVs, D-dimer levels, and platelet count, but not with calculated inflammatory markers (neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, platelet/lymphocyte ratio, and platelet/neutrophil ratio). Conclusion: Elevated levels of procoagulant MVs and TF-bearing MVs in patients with COVID-19 are suggested to be (i) early potential markers to predict the severity of COVID-19 (ii) a novel circulatory biomarker to evaluate the procoagulant activity and severity of COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Several different types of vaccines have been developed for the prevention of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Despite several local and systemic side-effects to COVID-19 vaccination reported, the vaccines are still considered the best intervention to tackle the spread of the virus and reduce the severity of COVID-19 infection. However, the reported side-effects continue to have a crucial role in public confidence in the vaccine and its acceptance. This study aimed to investigate the short-term side-effects reported by the healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia after receiving the first dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted among HCWs in the Jazan region of southwestern Saudi Arabia. Healthcare workers who had received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and agreed to participate in the study were followed up for 3 weeks post vaccination through a weekly online survey. Information was collected on local and/or systemic side-effects reported following vaccine administration. Participants' general and demographic information was also collected. RESULTS: A total of 57.2% (250/437) of the HCWs who participated in this study reported at least one side-effect. Injection site pain and redness (80.0%), fever (73.2%), whole-body pain/fatigue (56.4%), and headache (48.8%) were the most commonly reported side-effects. Moreover, 12.4% of the participants who reported side-effects needed to see a physician, and only one female participant was admitted to the hospital. Multivariate regression analyses revealed that nationality (Saudi, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.65; 95% CI = 2.40, 5.55) and residency (Jazan governorate, aOR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.15, 0.95) were the significant factors associated with reporting COVID-19 post-vaccination side-effects, while the number of reported side-effects was found to be significantly influenced by occupation (medical, aOR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.26, 0.66; p < 0.001) and gender (female, aOR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.38, 0.97; p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Findings of the present study support the safety of the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine among HCWs in Saudi Arabia. All the reported side-effects were mild-to-moderate side-effects. The findings may help convince vaccine-hesitant individuals and skeptics to accept the COVID-19 vaccine.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19. METHODS: Three search engines were searched on 13 April 2020 for specific Arabic terms on COVID-19. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were analyzed for eligibility, which resulted in a sample of 36 websites. These websites were subjected to quality assessments using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks tool, the DISCERN tool, and Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification. The readability of the websites was assessed using an online readability calculator. RESULTS: Among the 36 eligible websites, only one (2.7%) was HONcode certified. No website attained a high score based on the criteria of the DISCERN tool; the mean score of all websites was 31.5 ± 12.55. As regards the JAMA benchmarks results, a mean score of 2.08 ± 1.05 was achieved by the websites; however, only four (11.1%) met all the JAMA criteria. The average grade levels for readability were 7.2 ± 7.5, 3.3 ± 0.6 and 93.5 ± 19.4 for the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Flesch Reading Ease scales, respectively. CONCLUSION: Almost all of the most easily accessible web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19 does not meet recognized quality standards regardless of the level of readability and ability to be understood by the general population of Arabic speakers.