Side effects after COVID-19 vaccination: a comparison between the most common available vaccines in Iran

Background and Objectives: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began, several vaccines have been manufactured to subside it. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of side effects after injecting common COVID-19 vaccines available in Iran. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was accomplished on Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Tehran, Iran) employees during January and September 2022. Eligible participants were selected based on the simple random method and interviewed about side effects after injecting COVID-19 vaccine. Results: The mean age of 656 participants was 38.03 ± 9.53 years, and 453 (69.1%) were female. The prevalence of post-vaccination side effects was higher after receiving the first dose (53.2%) than the second (35.9%) and third (49.4%) doses. Across all three vaccine doses, the overall proportion of side effects was higher following AstraZeneca than the others. The most common side effect after the first dose of the vaccine was myalgia (41.9%), followed by fever (36.6%), chills (31.6%), local reactions (27.0%), headache (25.5%), and sweating (21.6%). People experienced mainly myalgia (23.3%) and fever (20.3%) after injecting the second dose of the vaccine. Additionally, the participants had myalgia (37.2%), fever (30.8%), chills (29.2%), local reactions (26.0%), and headache (24.4%) after the third dose of the vaccine. Conclusion: AstraZeneca had a higher proportion of post-vaccination adverse effects than Sputnik V, Pastocovac, and Sinopharm. The most common side effects were flu-like syndrome and local reactions at the injection site. Furthermore, people rarely experienced life-threatening side effects. Thus, the available COVID-19 vaccines in Iran are safe. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Iranian Journal of Microbiology is the property of Tehran University of Medical Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Study of the effects of interferon ß-1a on hospitalized patients with COVID-19: SBMU Taskforce on the COVIFERON study.

Interferons are an essential part of the innate immune system and have antiviral and immunomodulatory functions. We studied the effects of interferon ß-1a on the outcomes of severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Loghman-Hakim hospital from February 20, 2020 to April 20, 2020, Tehran, Iran. Patients were selected from two groups, the first group received interferon ß-1a in addition to the standard treatment regimen, and the second group received standard care. The clinical progression of two groups during their hospital admission was compared. We studied a total number of 395 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Out of this number, 111 patients (33.5%) died (31.3% of the interferon ß-1a group and 34.1% of the control group). The mortality rate indicated no statistically significant difference between groups (p-value = 0.348), however for patients who were hospitalized for more than a week, the rate of mortality was lower in the interferon ß-1a group (p-value = 0.014). The median hospital stay was statistically longer for patients treated by interferon ß-1a (p-value < 0.001). The results of this study showed that interferon ß-1a can improve the outcomes of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, but more adequately-powered randomized controlled trials should be conducted.

Predictors of contracting COVID-19 in nursing homes: Implications for clinical practice.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to identify the predictors of contracting COVID-19 among older people in nursing homes in Iran. DESIGN: A case-control study. METHODS: Four-hundred-nine nursing home residents aged 60 years and above, with a 1:2 ratio of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 to those not infected, from six nursing homes in Tehran between 25 March and 12 July 2021 were recruited. Participants completed a questionnaire comprising demographic and underlying disease questions, practice about prevention principles of SARS-CoV-2 infection, probably predisposing factors of the infection, and environmental and staff characteristic of nursing homes. Logistic regression was used to determine risk factors associated with contracting COVID-19. RESULTS: The mean age was 77.37 (±9.20) years; 54% were female. A logistic regression model showed that the most important predictors of becoming infected by SARS-CoV-2 included not using mask outside the room (odds ratio [OR]: 3.37, 95% CI: 1.74-6.53), longer staff shifts (OR: 3.02, 95% CI: 1.68-5.43), using cloth mask or not wearing a mask (OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.13-5.42) and not having glass barrier in visitors space (OR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.11-3.50). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that an increase in older people becoming infected by SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes is probably because of not wearing a mask in common places, use of a cloth mask, longer staff shift durations and not having a glass shield when interacting with visitors from outside of nursing homes. IMPACT: The predictors identified in this study can assist in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections in older people institutionalized in nursing homes. These data items can also inform the development of interventions to improve principles of infection prevention and control.

Evaluation of the prophylactic effect of hydroxychloroquine on people in close-contact with patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant mortality worldwide. The disease attacks the lung tissue and may lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome. An in vitro study showed that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has a prophylactic effect against COVID-19 due to its anti-inflammatory effects. The present study aimed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of HCQ on individuals in close contact with patients with COVID-19. METHOD: In this quasi-trial study, we prescribed HCQ for 7 days to all people who had close contact with a patient with COVID-19. All contacts underwent a nasal swab in two steps, and those positive for COVID-19 were excluded from the study. After 14 days of follow-up, the clinical and laboratory manifestations of COVID-19 were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 113 participants completed the study. The HCQ group comprised 51 (45.13%) contacts, and 62 (54.86%) contacts were allocated to the control group. According to the results of clinical examination and real-time polymerase chain reaction test, 8 (12.90%) contacts in the control group were reported to have contracted COVID-19. In the HCQ group, 7 (13.72%) contacts were confirmed to have contracted COVID-19. There was no relationship between HCQ use and age, sex, underlying disorders, and laboratory data (all p > 0.05). In terms of HCQ side effects, five participants experienced gastrointestinal and cutaneous side effects that subsided on discontinuation of HCQ. CONCLUSION: The current study showed that HCQ had no prophylactic effect with regard to COVID-19 prevention.

Early recovery of botulism: one decade of experience.

BACKGROUND: Botulism is a rare but serious disease, which appears in different forms. In this study, we reviewed the clinical features, laboratory data, and outcomes of patients who referred to our tertiary center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All confirmed cases of botulism referred to an academic referral center and a teaching hospital during 2009-2019, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Fifty-three cases of clinical or laboratory-confirmed botulism were examined in this study. Nineteen patients were confirmed by laboratory data (serotype A (89.5%) and serotype E (10.5%)). In seven cases, the cause of botulism was unclear. In two patients, systemic symptoms emerged after the therapeutic injection of botulinum neurotoxin. The majority of cases (83%) were caused by an obvious food source. In 66% of cases, the initial symptoms emerged within less than 36 h, while in 20.8% of cases, the symptoms developed within or after 36 h; however, in seven patients that their botulism sources were unclear, the onset could not be estimated. All patients showed cranial involvement and generalized manifestation, and 49.1% had gastrointestinal symptoms. Except for two patients who were not treated due to immediate drug reactions who manifested severe hemodynamic instability, the rest of the patients were treated with trivalent antitoxin (A, B, and E). The complete resolution of the symptoms during hospitalization was documented in 50.9% of the patients. About 17% of the patients were intubated. Two patients died due to massive bilateral pulmonary thromboembolism and cardiac asystole following respiratory failure. CONCLUSIONS: Although the complete resolution of the symptoms usually takes several weeks, in our experience, most patients showed at least partial resolution upon discharge. Early treatment results in better outcomes.

Umifenovir in hospitalized moderate to severe COVID-19 patients: A randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of umifenovir against COVID-19 is controversial; therefore, clinical trials are crucial to evaluate its efficacy. METHODS: The study was conducted as a single-center, randomized, open-label clinical trial. Eligible moderate-severe hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection were randomly segregated into intervention and control groups. The intervention group were treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg bid for 10-14 days) + hydroxychloroquine (400 mg single dose) + interferon-ß1a (Subcutaneous injections of 44 µg (12,000 IU) on days 1, 3, 5) + umifenovir (200 mg trice daily for 10 days), and the control group received lopinavir/ritonavir (same dose) + hydroxychloroquine (same dose) + interferon-ß1a (same dose). RESULTS: Of 1180 patients with positive RT-PCRs and positive chest CT scans, 101 patients were finally included in the trial; 50 were assigned to receive IFNß1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir group and 51 were managed to treat with IFNß1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir + umifenovir. Since all patients received the intended treatment as scheduled, the analysis just included as the ITT population. Time to clinical improvement (TTCI) did not hold a statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups (median, 9 days for intervention group versus 7 days for the control group; P: 0.22). Besides, Hazard Ratio for TTCI in the Cox regression model was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.45-1.23, P:0.25) which also confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. The mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (38% in controls vs 33.3% treatment group). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings shed new lights on the facts that additional umifenovir has not been found to be effective in shortening the duration of SARS-CoV-2 in severe patients and improving the prognosis in non-ICU patients and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was confirmed by the Ethics in Medical Research Committee of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. signed informed consents were obtained from all the participants or their legally authorized representatives. This trial has been registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350684.

Role of interferon therapy in severe COVID-19: the COVIFERON randomized controlled trial.

Type 1 Interferons (IFNs) have been associated with positive effects on Coronaviruses. Previous studies point towards the superior potency of IFNß compared to IFNα against viral infections. We conducted a three-armed, individually-randomized, open-label, controlled trial of IFNß1a and IFNß1b, comparing them against each other and a control group. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to IFNß1a (subcutaneous injections of 12,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), IFNß1b (subcutaneous injections of 8,000,000 IU on days 1, 3, 6), or the control group. All three arms orally received Lopinavir/Ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice a day for ten days) and a single dose of Hydroxychloroquine 400 mg on the first day. Our utilized primary outcome measure was Time To Clinical Improvement (TTCI) defined as the time from enrollment to discharge or a decline of two steps on the clinical seven-step ordinal scale, whichsoever came first. A total of 60 severely ill patients with positive RT-PCR and Chest CT scans underwent randomization (20 patients to each arm). In the Intention-To-Treat population, IFNß1a was associated with a significant difference against the control group, in the TTCI; (HR; 2.36, 95% CI 1.10-5.17, P-value = 0.031) while the IFNß1b indicated no significant difference compared with the control; HR; 1.42, (95% CI 0.63-3.16, P-value = 0.395). The median TTCI for both of the intervention groups was five days vs. seven days for the control group. The mortality was numerically lower in both of the intervention groups (20% in the IFNß1a group and 30% in the IFNß1b group vs. 45% in the control group). There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding the adverse events. In patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared with the base therapeutic regiment, the benefit of a significant reduction in TTCI was observed in the IFNß1a arm. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies.Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04343768. (Submitted: 08/04/2020; First Online: 13/04/2020) (Registration Number: NCT04343768).