Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance.

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.

Knowledge mobilization activities to support decision-making by youth, parents, and adults using a systematic and living map of evidence and recommendations on COVID-19: protocol for three randomized controlled trials and qualitative user-experience studies.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public's understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population's results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990 . Registered on May 3, 2022.

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.

Monkeypox Knowledge and Vaccine Hesitancy of Czech Healthcare Workers: A Health Belief Model (HBM)-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: The recent human monkeypox virus (HMPXV) outbreak in non-endemic countries that started in May 2022 has raised concerns among public health authorities worldwide. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a decisive role during epidemics in transmitting accurate information to the public and motivating them to pursue protective behaviours, including immunisation. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted in the Czech Republic in September 2022 to evaluate HMPXV-related knowledge and vaccination perceptions among HCWs. The study utilised a digital self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) to collect data from the target population. The proposed SAQ inquired about participants' sociodemographic and anamnestic characteristics, perceived knowledge of HMPXV, factual knowledge, and vaccination perceptions according to the health belief model (HBM). RESULTS: A total of 341 participants were included in this study; most of them were females (88.9%), allied HCWs (89.4%), heterosexuals (87.1%), married (61.9%), and vaccinated against COVID-19 (91.2%). Only 8.8% of the participants agreed to receive vaccination against HMPXV; 44.9% rejected it, while 46.3% were hesitant. While digital news portals (47.5%) and social media (25.8%) were among the most utilised sources of information about HMPXV, the scientific journals (5.6%), ECDC (5%), and the U.S. CDC (1.5%) were the least common sources. The participants demonstrated suboptimal levels of factual knowledge, especially regarding HMPXV vaccines (1.5 ± 1.2 (0-4)) and treatments (0.9 ± 0.9 (0-4)). Additionally, several misconceptions were detectable among the participants, regarding topics such as the availability of effective vaccines and antivirals against HMPXV, the risk of vertical transmission, and homosexual stigmatisation. The HBM indicated that the cues to action and perceived susceptibility were the most important constructs to predict HMPXV vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: the findings of this study call upon public health practitioners and health policymakers in the Czech Republic to act accordingly in order to determine the drivers of vaccine hesitancy among Czech HCWs. Dedicated educational campaigns should aim to counter the HCWs' misconceptions around HMPXV, and future studies should aim to explore the prevalence and drivers of HMPXV vaccine hesitancy among the general population.

Communication, an important link between healthcare providers: a best practice implementation project.

OBJECTIVES: This project aimed to improve communication skills of medical laboratory staff and the quality of health services. INTRODUCTION: Communication is the basis of all interpersonal actions; optimal and efficient communication needs permanent awareness and training in order to learn these skills. The healthcare industry is a constantly changing field, so communication becomes a very important tool that contributes to change. METHODS: This project has been conducted following the JBI framework to improve the communication process in a medical laboratory. A baseline audit involved 30 multidisciplinary healthcare providers (HCP). Using audit criteria provided by JBI, data for clinical audits were collected using a completed audit questionnaire based on direct observation and interview of participants, and checking the records. Once the information had been gathered, the team involved in the project implemented a three sessions workshop focused on communication to solve/improve identified barriers. A follow-up audit was conducted to assess the outcomes of the intervention. RESULTS: The implementation of the project resulted in the evolution of the participants and the cohesion of the healthcare team. The baseline compliance with best practice for audit criteria shows that only a part of those involved in the study benefited from training communication. Lack of time for team briefings and interactions led to different points of view. In the pandemic context, the implementation of the communication improvement strategy was conducted online, with all 30 HCP participating in training sessions. After the follow-up audit, the evolution was demonstrated by the improvement of the HCP compliance compared with the two audit criteria identified with the insufficient compliance in the basic audit. CONCLUSION: Effective communication is a necessity to meet patient needs and to provide high-quality services. The healthcare team received training for communication focused on interpersonal communication.

Self-reported side effects of the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers in Ethiopia, Africa: A cross-sectional study

Introduction Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Africa. Ethiopia received most of its COVID-19 vaccines through donations. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine is the first to be donated to Ethiopia by the COVAX facility. Healthcare workers were the priority population that received the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. However, there was no nationwide study on the safety of the vaccine in Ethiopia. This study aimed to measure the prevalence and predictors of self-reported side effects of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine. Materials and methods The study employed a cross-sectional design. A sample of healthcare workers who took Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was drawn from four regions of Ethiopia;namely, Amhara, Oromia, Somali, and Southwest. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, medical anamnesis, COVID-19 related anamnesis, and COVID-19 vaccine anamnesis via telephone interview. Descriptive and inferential analyses were done. The software, IBM SPSS Statistics v21.0, was used for analyses of data. Results Out of 384 people, 346 responded (response rate: 90.1%). Female accounted for 34.1% of the respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 31.0 years (Standard Deviation (SD) = 7.4). Nurses accounted for 43.7% of the respondents. The prevalence of at least one local- and systemic-side effect was 50.6 and 44.5%, respectively. The most frequent local- and systemic- side effect were injection site pain and headache, respectively. Both types of side effects mostly subsided in the first 3 days. A third of healthcare workers with side effects took at least one medication. Paracetamol followed by diclofenac sodium were taken by healthcare workers to overcome side effects. There was no independent predictor of local side effect. After controlling for age and chronic diseases, the odds of healthcare workers with COVID-19 like symptoms to experience systemic side effects was 1.38 (Confidence Interval (CI): 1.04–1.82) times more than that of healthcare workers without COVID-19 like symptoms. Conclusions The prevalence of local- and systemic-side effects of the Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was modest. As the symptoms were mostly common in the first 3 days, it is preferable to monitor healthcare workers at least in the first 3 days following the administration of the vaccine.

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.

How the COVID-19 pandemic influences the prevalence of pressure injuries in the Czech Republic: A nationwide analysis of a health registry in 2020.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 significantly influences the overall patient status and, in severe symptomatology, the ability to move and the low oxygenation of the tissue for the ventilated patient in Intensive Care Units (ICU). There is a higher risk for Pressure injuries (PIs) development. OBJECTIVES: The nationwide analyses of the National health register aimed to compare the prevalence of PIs reported before the pandemic COVID-19 started and during the pandemic in 2020. METHOD: A retrospective, nationwide cross-sectional analysis of data regarding the STROBE checklist collected by the National Health Information System (NHIS), focusing on the PIs reporting based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnoses L89.0-L89.9 for PIs in 2020. The data from the pandemic period of COVID-19 in 2020 were compared to the prevalence of PI cases in the period 2010-2019 in the Czech Republic in all hospitalized patients. RESULTS: The total number of admissions for L89 in 2020 was 14,441, of which 1509 (10.4%) also had COVID-19. In the ICU were 4386 admissions, 12.1% of which also had COVID-19. A higher proportion of PIs is observed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 than in patients without COVID-19 (2.62% vs 0.81%, respectively 1.05% vs 0.46% when standardized to the 2013 ESP = European Standard Population). In patients hospitalized in ICU, 3.68% with COVID-19 had PIs vs 1.42% without COVID-19 had PIs (1.97% vs 0.81% using the 2013 ESP). CONCLUSION: The national health registers analyses have proven that the prevalence of PIs was higher among patients hospitalized with the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

An evaluation of the COVID-19 recommendation map identified diverging clinical and public health guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence. RESULTS: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence. CONCLUSION: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence.

A multistakeholder development process to prioritize and translate COVID-19 health recommendations for patients, caregivers and the public. A case study of the COVID-19 recommendation map.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To develop a digital communication tool to improve the implementation of up-to-date COVID-19 recommendations. Specifically, to improve patient, caregiver and public understanding of healthcare recommendations on prevention, diagnoses and treatment. METHODS: Multi-stakeholder engagement design. In conjunction with the COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization RecMap, we co-developed a stakeholder prioritization, drafting and editing process to enhance guideline communication and understanding. RESULTS: This paper presents the multi-stakeholder development process with three distinct plain language recommendation formats: formal recommendation, good practice statement, and additional guidance. Our case study of COVID-19 plain language recommendations PLRs addresses both public health interventions (e.g., vaccination, face masks) and clinical interventions (e.g., home pulse oximetry). CONCLUSION: This paper presents a novel approach to engaging stakeholders in improving the communication and understanding of published guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prevalence and Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy Among German University Students and Employees.

COVID-19 booster hesitancy (VBH) is a serious public health challenge which acts simultaneously with the waning vaccine-elicited immunity and the emerging viral variants to prolong the pandemic interval. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of COVID-19 VBH among a highly educated subset of the German population and to explore the potential demographic, anamnestic, and psychosocial determinants of this problem. A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted in December 2021 among German university students and employees to evaluate their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine booster (VB) doses. The study used a self-administered questionnaire that was developed and disseminated digitally, and the questionnaire inquired about participants' demographic characteristics, COVID-19-related anamnesis, COVID-19 vaccine-related anamnesis, and psychosocial predictors of COVID-19 VBH. A total of 930 participants were recruited, of which 608 (65.4%) were students, 682 (73.3%) were females, and their mean age was 29.08 ± 10.93 years. Fifty-five participants (5.9%) had been previously infected by COVID-19 and the vast majority of infections happened before the first vaccine dose. Over 95% of the participants had received at least one vaccine dose, and the most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2. The overall COVID-19 VB acceptance was satisfactory (87.8%) and induced by various altruistic promoters, e.g., family health protection, community health protection, and patients' health protection. The students (86.3%), the previously infected participants (76.4%), the participants who did not receive primer doses of COVID-19 vaccines (2.5 %), and those who were hospitalized (40%) and sought medical care/treatment after receiving primer doses (86.8%) were less likely to accept COVID-19 VB compared to the employees (90.7%), the participants who were not previously infected (88.6%) and those who received primer dose (91.7%), and the participants who were not hospitalized (92%) nor sought medical care/treatment after primer doses (92.9%), respectively. The perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 VB against severe illness (adjusted odds ratio "AOR": 47.65-95% confidence interval "CI": 23.65-96.49), symptomatic infection (AOR: 9.87-95% CI: 5.20-18.71), community transmission (AOR: 5.34-95% CI: 3.00-9.49) and emerging variants (AOR: 19.12-95% CI: 10.57-34.55) were key predictors for COVID-19 VB acceptance; therefore, it needs to be highlighted in vaccine messaging. In addition, the perceived safety of COVID-19 VB and ethical dilemmas of vaccine justice need to be addressed publicly.

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. CONCLUSIONS: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance of Pregnant and Lactating Women (PLW) in Czechia: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study.

Pregnant and lactating women (PLW) represent a particular population subset with increased susceptibility for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, even though the evidence about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines was delayed due to their initial exclusion from development trials. This unclear situation could have led to increased COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy levels among PLW; therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of Czech PLW towards COVID-19 vaccines and the determinants of their attitudes. An analytical cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out in the University Hospital Brno (South Moravia, Czechia) between August and October 2021. The study utilised a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) adapted from previous instruments used for the same purpose. The SAQ included closed-ended items covering demographic characteristics, clinical and obstetric characteristics, attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination, and potential psychosocial predictors of vaccine acceptance. Out of the 362 included participants, 278 were pregnant (PW) and 84 were lactating women (LW). The overall COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (immediate and delayed) level was substantially high (70.2%), with a significant difference between PW (76.6%) and LW (48.8%). Out of the 70.2% who agreed to receive the vaccine, 3.6% indicated immediate acceptance, and 66.6% indicated delayed acceptance. Only 13.3% of the participants indicated their acceptance of their physician's vaccination recommendation during pregnancy or while lactating, and 62.2% were against it. Our results agreed with the recent studies that revealed that PW tended to have a high level of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, and they were also inclined to resist professional recommendations because they predominantly preferred to delay their vaccination. The pregnancy trimester, education level, employment status, and previous live births were significant determinants for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. The most commonly preferred vaccine type was mRNA-based vaccines, followed by viral vector-based and inactivated virus vaccines. The first top priority of PLW was vaccine safety for their children, followed by vaccine safety for the PLW and vaccine effectiveness. Regarding psychosocial predictors, media/social media, trust in the government, the pharmaceutical industry, and healthcare professionals, partners, and a positive risk-benefit ratio were significant promoters for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Findings from this study suggest that promotional interventions targeting PLW should use web platforms and focus on vaccine safety evidence, the expected benefits of vaccines and potential harms of the infection.

COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy (VBH) of Healthcare Workers in Czechia: National Cross-Sectional Study.

The emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and waning vaccine-elicited immunity are two public health challenges that occurred simultaneously and synergistically during the summer of 2021 and led to a surging demand for COVID-19 vaccine booster dose (BD) rollout. This study aimed to evaluate the COVID-19 vaccine booster hesitancy (VBH) among Czech healthcare workers to explore the potential determinants of VBH. A national cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out between 3 and 11 November 2021, using an online self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) that explored the participants' demographic characteristics, COVID-19 infection and vaccine anamneses, willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine BD, and the psychosocial drivers of VBH. A total of 3454 HCW properly responded to the online SAQ, of which 80.9% were females, 30.3% were medical professionals, and 50.5% were ≤47 years old. Most of the participants were already inoculated against SARS-CoV-2 (95.2%), and BTN162b2 was the most commonly administered vaccine (90.7%). As the study sample was planned to represent the target population, it revealed a high level of BD acceptance (71.3%) among Czech HCW, while 12.2% were still hesitant and 16.6% were against the currently available BD. These results are consistent with other recent results from central Europe. Medical professional, male, and older participants were more likely to accept BD rather than allied health professional, female, and younger participants. The BDs' perceived effectiveness against severe illness, symptomatic infection, and community transmission was a significant and strong predictor for BD acceptance, while the effectiveness against the circulating variants was not that important for our target population. The BDs' perceived safety and ethical dilemmas of vaccine justice should be addressed sufficiently while communicating with HCW and other population groups. The altruistic reasons for BD acceptance, i.e., family protection, patient protection, and community health protection, underpin the recommendation of postponing the COVID-19 vaccine mandating in favour of stressing these altruistic concerns amid public health messaging.

Global Prevalence of COVID-19-Associated Mucormycosis (CAM): Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mucormycosis, a secondary fungal infection, gained much attention in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This deadly infection has a high all-cause mortality rate and imposes a significant economic, epidemiological, and humanistic burden on the patients and healthcare system. Evidence from the published epidemiological studies showed the varying prevalence of COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM). This study aims to compute the pooled prevalence of CAM and other associated clinical outcomes. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and WHO COVID-19 databases were scanned to retrieve the relevant articles until August 2021. All studies reporting the prevalence of mucormycosis among COVID-19 patients were eligible for inclusion. Two investigators independently screened the articles against the selection criteria, extracted the data, and performed the quality assessment using the JBI tool. The pooled prevalence of CAM was the primary outcome, and the pooled prevalence of diabetes, steroid exposure, and the mortality rate were the secondary outcomes of interest. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2 was used for performing the meta-analysis. This meta-analysis comprised six studies with a pooled sample size of 52,916 COVID-19 patients with a mean age of 62.12 ± 9.69 years. The mean duration of mucormycosis onset was 14.59 ± 6.88 days after the COVID-19 diagnosis. The pooled prevalence of CAM (seven cases per 1000 patients) was 50 times higher than the highest recorded background of mucormycosis (0.14 cases per 1000 patients). A high mortality rate was found among CAM patients with a pooled prevalence rate of 29.6% (95% CI: 17.2-45.9%). Optimal glycemic control and the judicious use of steroids should be the approach for tackling rising CAM cases.

Self-Reported Adverse Events of COVID-19 Vaccines in Polish Healthcare Workers and Medical Students. Cross-Sectional Study and Pooled Analysis of CoVaST Project Results in Central Europe.

BACKGROUND: Optimization of COVID-19 vaccination rate among healthcare personnel is of utmost priority to secure provision of uninterrupted care and to protect the most vulnerable patients. This study, as part of the global CoVaST project, aimed to assess the occurrence of short-term adverse events (SRAEs) of two most administered COVID-19 vaccines, mRNA-based (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) and viral vector-based (AstraZeneca) in healthcare sector workers (HWs). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out for the first time among 317 Polish healthcare sector personnel and medical students using a validated and pre-tested questionnaire. The online questionnaire included 25 pre-tested, validated questions concerning demographic data, medical parameters, COVID-19-related anamneses, and local or systemic reactions (reactogenicity) associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Descriptive statistics, inferential tests and binary logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Out of the 247 participating HWs, 79.8% were females, and 77.5% received mRNA-based vaccines, while 24.5% received a viral vector-based vaccine. Cumulatively, 78.9% and 60.7% of the participants reported at least one local and one systemic SRAE respectively, following their COVID-19 first or second dose of vaccine. A wide array of SRAEs was observed, while pain at injection site (76.9%) was the most common local SRAE, and fatigue (46.2%), headache (37.7%), muscle pain (31.6%) were the most common systemic SRAEs. The vast proportion of local (35.2%) and systemic (44.8%) SRAEs subsided up to 1 day after inoculation with both types of vaccines. The mRNA-based vaccine versions seem to cause higher prevalence of local SRAEs, mainly pain within injection site (81.3% vs. 71.7%; p = 0.435), while the viral vector-based vaccine was linked with increased incidents of mild systemic side effects (76.7% vs. 55.3%; p = 0.004) after both doses. Pooled analysis revealed uniform results while comparing the prevalence of SRAEs in HWs as recipients in four central European countries (OR = 2.38; 95% CI = 2.03-2.79). CONCLUSIONS: The study confirmed the safety of commonly administered vaccines against COVID-19, which were associated with mild, self-resolving adverse events. No major vaccine-related incidents were reported which would affect every day functioning, significantly. The younger age group (below 29 y.o.) were associated with an increased risk of adverse events generally. The results enhanced current data regarding COVID-19 vaccination active surveillance in selected occupational groups.

Side Effects of mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccines among Young Adults (18-30 Years Old): An Independent Post-Marketing Study.

Young adults had been widely perceived as a low-risk group for COVID-19 severity; therefore, they were deprioritised within the mass vaccination strategies as their prognosis of COVID-19 infection is relatively more favourable than older age groups. On the other hand, vaccination of this demographic group is indispensable to achieve herd immunity. A cross-sectional survey-based study was used to evaluate the side effects of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines among university students in the Czech Republic. The validated questionnaire was delivered in a digital form, and it consisted of demographic data; COVID-19 vaccine-related anamnesis; and local, systemic, orofacial, and skin-related side effects' prevalence, onset, and duration. Out of the 539 included participants, 70.1% were females and 45.8% were <23 years old. The vast majority (95.2%) reported at least one side effect. The most common side effect was injection site pain (91.8%), followed by fatigue (62.5%), headache (36.4%), and muscle pain (34.9%). The majority of local side effects occurred after both doses (74.4%), while most systemic side effects occurred after the second dose only (56.2%). Most local (94.2%) and systemic (93.3%) side effects resolved within three days after vaccination. Females participants' adjusted odds ratio (AOR) showed they were 2.566 (CI 95%: 1.103-5.970) times more likely to experience post-vaccination side effects, and the participants who received two doses reported an increased AOR of 1.896 (0.708-5.077) for experiencing side effects. The results of this study imply that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are highly probably safe for young adults, and further studies are required to investigate the role of medical anamnesis, prior COVID-19 infection, and gender in side effects incidence.