Risk Communication in Early Containment of COVID-19 Pandemic in Iran: Implementation of the World Health Organization Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (WHO-SPRP).

Background: Health systems must have functional and efficient preparedness and response plans to manage pandemics. Moreover, it is essential to adjust to changing circumstances and the dynamic character of pandemics. The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan (SPRP), emphasizing 144 measures across 10 pillars, helping governments prepare and respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to determine how the Iranian health system, based on the WHO-SPRP, addresses strategic preparedness and response plan in the COVID-19 pandemic at the national level. Methods: The WHO-SPRP was adopted and translated into Persian by 2 bilingual natives. The chief of the health office requested that authorized officers complete the SPRP. Then, a meeting was held by officers of related units involved in COVID-19 management to address the SPRP at regional and national levels. Results: Our findings suggest that up to August 2020, effective risk communication and community engagement were not fully established. Our response plan lacked evidence-based information and educational messaging to consistently shape public opinion and impression of a respiratory pandemic. Conclusion: The Iranian health care system and services were almost able to address the SPRP and perform the major indicators that the WHO had proposed. However, special attention should be paid to risk communication and community engagement to empower informed decision-making by individuals and communities.

Perceived Stress among Iranians during COVID-19 Pandemic; Stressors and Coping Mechanisms: A Mixed-methods Approach.

OBJECTIVE: New coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic socioeconomically affected the world. In this study, we measured the perceived stress in response to the COVID-19 pandemic among Iranians to determine the groups at both extremes of the spectrum followed by identifying the stressors and coping mechanisms. METHODS: This study was a mixed-methods study. We distributed a web-based 10-item perceived stress scale (PSS-10), to measure perceived stress score (PSS), through social networks from March 12 to 23, 2020. Then, we interviewed 42 students, 31 homemakers, 27 healthcare providers, and 21 male participants to identify the sources of stress and coping mechanisms. RESULTS: Finally, 13,454 participants completed the questionnaires. The median and interquartile range (IQR) of the participants' PSS was 21 (15-25). Students, homemakers, and healthcare workers (HCWs) showed a higher median (IQR) of PSS compared to other groups (23 [18 to 27], 22 [16 to 26], and 19 [14 to 24], respectively). Male participants showed a lower median (IQR) PSS (17 [12 to 23]). Content analysis of 121 participants' answers showed that the most common stressors were school-related issues mentioned by students, family-related issues mentioned by homemakers, and COVID-19-related issues mentioned by healthcare providers. Male participants' coping mechanisms were mostly related to the perception of their abilities to cope with the current crisis. CONCLUSION: Our participants clinically showed a moderate level of PSS. The main stressors among students, homemakers, and HCWs were related to their principal role in this period, and male participants' coping mechanisms were inspired by the self-image retrieved from the social perspectives.

COVID-19 related stigma among the general population in Iran.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 related stigma has been identified as a critical issue since the beginning of the pandemic. We developed a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure COVID-19 related enacted stigma, inflicted by the non-infected general population. We applied the questionnaire to measure COVID-19 related enacted stigma among Tehran citizens from 27 to 30 September 2020. METHODS: A preliminary questionnaire with 18 items was developed. The total score ranged from 18 to 54; a higher score indicated a higher level of COVID-19 related stigma. An expert panel assessed the face and content validity. Of 1637 randomly recruited Tehran citizens without a history of COVID-19 infection, 1064 participants consented and were interviewed by trained interviewers by phone. RESULTS: Item content validity index (I-CVI), Item content validity ratio (I-CVR), and Item face validity index (I-FVI) were higher than 0.78 for all 18 items. The content and face validity were established with a scale content validity index (S-CVI) of 0.90 and a scale face validity index (S-CVI) of 93.9%, respectively. Internal consistency of the questionnaire with 18 items was confirmed with Cronbach's alpha of 0.625. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five latent variables, including "blaming", "social discrimination", "dishonor label", "interpersonal contact", and "retribution and requital attitude". The median of the stigma score was 24 [25th percentile: 22, 75the percentile: 28]. A large majority (86.8%) of participants reported a low level of stigma with a score below 31. None of the participants showed a high level of stigma with a score above 43. We found that the higher the educational level the lower the participant's stigma score. CONCLUSION: We found a low level of stigmatizing thoughts and behavior among the non-infected general population in Tehran, which may be due to the social desirability effect, to the widespread nature of COVID-19, or to the adaptation to sociocultural diversity of the large city.

The effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines against postvaccination laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate the pooled effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and its clinical outcomes. METHODS: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed (Medline), and Embase were searched on 9 September 2021. The odds ratio (OR) of COVID-19 infection and its clinical outcomes in fully/ partially vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants were calculated and pooled by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The pooled analysis showed that among health care workers and general population, vaccinated participants with one or two doses were less likely to infect with SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.16; 95%CI: 0.08-0.32; I2 = 79.86%; 95%CI I2: 68.99-87.21%), to develop symptomatic COVID-19 infection (OR = 0.09; 95%CI: 0.03-0.32; I2 = 80.43%; 95%CI I2: 70.83-89.33%), to admit to the hospital because of COVID-19 (OR = 0.13; 95%CI: 0.06-0.28; I2 = 86.19%; 95%CI I2: 67.80-93.88%), and to die from COVID-19 (OR = 0.14; 95%CI: 0.06-0.35; I2 = 66.76%; 95%CI I2: 54.00-76.99%) than unvaccinated participants. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, especially following administration of two doses, are extremely effective. It would be suggested further studies with large sample size and different ethnicities to be conducted among the general population to warrant these results.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute viral respiratory tract infections: An updated systematic review.

In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating respiratory tract infections in adults and children. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. A total of 34 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies using the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. The evidence on ibuprofen, naproxen, aspirin, diclofenac, and other NSAIDs were rated for degree of uncertainty for each of the study outcomes and summarized using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our findings suggest that high-quality evidence supports the use of NSAIDs to reduce fever in both adults and children. However, the evidence was uncertain for the use of NSAIDs to reduce cough. Most studies showed that NSAIDs significantly relieved sore throat. The evidence for mortality and oxygenation is limited. Regarding the adverse events, gastrointestinal discomfort was more frequently reported in children. For adults, our overall certainty in effect estimates was low and the increase in gastrointestinal adverse events was not clinically significant. In conclusion, NSAIDs seem to be beneficial in the outpatient management of fever and sore throat in adults and children. Although the evidence does not support their use to decrease mortality nor improve oxygenation in inpatient settings, the use of NSAIDs did not increase the rate of death or the need for ventilation in patients with respiratory tract infections. Further studies with a robust methodology and larger sample sizes are recommended.

Evaluation of Reinfection in COVID-19 Patients in the World: A Narrative Review.

Background: The evaluation of reinfection and the genetic structure of all human and virus genomes could help to develop programs and protocols for providing services and ultimately to prevent the disease by producing more effective vaccines. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the presence and occurrence of COVID-19 reinfection through a narrative review study. Methods: We searched the Medline (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Ovid, and CINHAL databases. Inclusion criteria included all studies whose main purpose was to provide information about the occurrence or presence of reinfection in patients with COVID-19. An independent samples t test was used to compare the continuous outcomes between the 2 groups. Results: The mean duration of the first episode in the group with mild or moderate COVID-19 was 24.42±1.67 days, and it was 21.80±3.79 days in the group with severe COVID-19. The mean duration of the second episode (reinfection) in patients with mild or moderate form was 15.38 ± 5.57 days, and it was 19.20±2.98 days in patients with severe form. In both episodes, the duration of the disease did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (p=0.484 in the first episode; p=0.675 in the second episode), but the interval to the occurrence of reinfection in patients with the mild or moderate form was significantly longer than those with the severe form (p<0.001). In this instance, the time interval in patients with the mild or moderate form was 36.63±5.71 days while in those with the severe form of the disease it was 29.70±5.65 days. Besides, the genomes of the viruses isolated from the first and second episode were different. Conclusion: According to the results, all patients should be very careful about the severity of the second episode because of the more need for medical interventions for saving the patients. The interval between the first end and the second episode as well as the duration of each episode is highly important for better management of the disease.

Efficacy and safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: A comprehensive evidence synthesis of clinical, animal, and in vitro studies.

Background: The world is facing a pandemic of COVID-19, a respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus which is now called SARS-CoV-2. Current treatment recommendations for the infection are mainly repurposed drugs based on experience with other clinically similar conditions and are not backed by direct evidence. Chloroquine (CQ) and its derivative Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are among the candidates. We aimed to synthesize current evidence systematically for in vitro, animal, and human studies on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine in patients with COVID-19. Methods: The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, PubMed (via Medline), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, MedRxiv, clinical trial registries including clinicaltrials.gov, ChiCTR (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry), IRCT (Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials), and the EU Clinical Trials Register. We used the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment in randomized studies, the ROBINS tool for non-randomized studies, and the GRADE methodology to summarize the evidence and certainty in effect estimates. Results: The initial database searching retrieved 24,752 studies. Of these, 15,435 abstracts were screened and 115 were selected for full-text review. Finally, 20 human studies, 3 animal studies, and 4 in vitro studies were included in this systematic review. The risk of bias within studies was unclear to high and the overall certainty in evidence-based on GRADES- was very low. HCQ may be effective in clinical improvement in a subset of patients with COVID-19. However, the frequency of adverse events was higher in patients taking HCQ compared to standard of care alone. In contrast, animal studies, did not report any adverse effects. Furthermore, clear benefit of the drug in the survival of the animals has been reported. Most in vitro studies indicated a high selectivity index for the drug and one study that used a human coronavirus reported blockage of virus replication. Conclusion: Current evidence background is limited to six poorly conducted clinical studies with inconsistent findings which fail to show significant efficacy for HCQ. Safety data is also limited but the drug may increase adverse outcomes. Routine use of the drug is not recommended based on limited efficacy and concerns about the drug safety especially in high-risk populations.

Clinical manifestation and maternal complications and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with COVID-19: a comprehensive evidence synthesis and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: There is little known about pregnancy-related complications and comorbidity in this group of women. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to find out whether COVID-19 may cause different manifestations and outcomes in the antepartum and postpartum period or not. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched databases, including Medline (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of sciences, Cochrane library, Ovid, and CINHAL to retrieve all articles reporting the prevalence of maternal and neonatal complications, in addition to clinical manifestations, in pregnant women with COVID-19 that published with English language January to November 2020. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies with total 5560 pregnant women included in this systematic review. The results show that the pooled prevalence of neonatal mortality, lower birth weight, stillbirth, premature birth, and intrauterine fetal distress in women with COVID-19 was 4% (95% Cl: 1 - 9%), 21% (95% Cl: 11 - 31%), 2% (95% Cl: 1 - 6%), 28% (95% Cl: 13 - 43%), and 14% (95% Cl: 4 - 25%); respectively. Moreover, the pooled prevalence of fever, cough, diarrhea, and dyspnea were 56% (95% Cl: 32 - 81%), 29% (95% Cl: 21 - 38%), 9% (95% Cl: 2 - 16%), and 3% (95% Cl: 1 - 6%) in pregnant women with COVID-19. Two studies reported that pregnant women with severe COVID pneumonia have higher levels of d-dimer. Also, COVID pneumonia is more common in pregnant women than non-pregnant. CONCLUSION: According to this meta-analysis, pregnant women with COVID-19 with or without pneumonia, are at a higher risk of preeclampsia, preterm birth, miscarriage and cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the risk of LBW and intrauterine fetal distress seems to be increased in neonates. In addition, our evaluations are investigative of higher risk of COVID-19 in the third trimester in pregnant women comparing to the first and second trimester. It can be due to higher BMI in the third trimester causing to increase the likelihood of disease deterioration, which can trigger a cascade of side effects starting with coagulation, pneumonia, hypoxemia affecting the placenta leading to ICU admission, fetal distress, premature birth and higher rates of C-section.

Investigating the factors affecting the survival rate in patients with COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: As hospitalized patients with COVID-19, especially those who are admitted to ICU or die afterwards, generally have comorbidities, the aim of this study was to determine the factors affecting the survival rate of COVID-19 patients in Iran using a retrospective cohort. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with COVID-19 who referred to medical centers under the supervision of Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, from February 22 to March 25, 2020. The final date of follow-up was April 19, 2020. All consecutive inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were included in this study. Clinical laboratory, radiological, treatment, and demographic data were collected and analyzed. The associations among gender, immune disease, diabetes, liver disease, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, chronic pulmonary disease, cancer, chronic nervous disease, type of treatment, and risk of death were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank tests were used to estimate survival rate and compare survival rates, respectively. Results: The total number of deaths or desired event in the study was 329 (10.3%).The risk of death in the age groups of 50-60 years, 60-70 years, and >70 years compared to the 30-40 age group was 2.17 (95% CI: 1.03, 4.55; p: 0.040); 3.72 (95 % CI: 1.80, 7.68; p: 0.001) and 5.09 (95 % CI: 2.49, 10.40; p: 0.001), respectively. The results showed men had 11.5% more risk of deaths than women (HR: 1.11; 95 % CI: 0.89, 1.39; p: 0.341). Kidney disease increased the risk of death by 52.3% in these patients, which was not statistically significant (HR: 1.78; 95 % CI: 1.04, 3.04; p: 0.035). Also, chronic pulmonary diseases and diabetes increased the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by 89.5% and 41.3% compared to COVID-19 patients without chronic pulmonary diseases and diabetes [(HR: 1.89; 95 % CI: 1.17, 3.04; p: 0.008), (HR: 1.41; 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.96; p: 0.038)]. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, more attention and care should be paid to COVID-19 patients with underlying diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and kidney disease to reduce the number of deaths.