ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination safety have been conducted in Saudi Arabia. Even though there is less evidence comparing the side effects of different vaccines and a few of them studied the side effects of mixing different platforms of vaccines. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the type and severity of adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination based on the type and platform of received vaccine and to determine factors that contribute to the occurrence of these side effects. METHODS: This cross-sectional comparative study was conducted in Saudi Arabia from January to the end of February 2022 among COVID-19 vaccine recipients through an online survey. Based on the type of vaccines received, we categorized our participants into two groups - those who received two doses of either the Pfizer or the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, and those who received mixed vaccination regimen (one dose of Pfizer and one dose of AstraZeneca). RESULTS: The study included 1,340 participants, of which 56.3% received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine while (7%) received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and 8.8% received mixed vaccines (one dose of the Pfizer vaccine and one dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine). Pain at the injection site was the most frequent local symptom (37.9%) followed by swelling±redness (27.6%). The local adverse reactions were nearly equal in AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines, whereas these were significantly lower in those who received mixed doses (p<0.001). Fever was significantly higher in mixed vaccination regimens compared to other types (p<0.001). The male gender who received the Pfizer vaccine were at higher risk of developing an adverse reaction following vaccination. Unusual side effects (sleep disorders, menstrual irregularities, and symptoms suggestive of diabetic neuropathy) were also reported. CONCLUSION: The results suggest the overall safety of Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines as well as the mixed vaccination protocol. A heterologous regimen was associated with fewer side effects compared to homologous vaccines. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term side effects.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines initially excluded pregnant women. However, observational studies revealed a relative safety of the vaccine during pregnancy therefore association between different types of COVID-19 vaccination and the risk of abortion must be studied. Objectives: The objective is to explore the possible association between abortion and different types of COVID-19 vaccination in Jeddah. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study done in three private general hospitals in Jeddah using electronic medical records and phone interviews of pregnant women who were admitted with abortion. Women were then interviewed for their vaccination data (type, dose) and their current pregnancy outcome (aborted or not). RESULTS: Medical records of 214 women diagnosed with abortion were included; 13.1% of them managed to continue their pregnancy. Vaccinated women (86%) had significantly earlier gestational age (p=0.031), higher hypertension (<0.001), and lower positive consanguinity (<0.001) compared to non-vaccinated women. The type (p=0.636) and number (p=0.331) of vaccination did not differ significantly among vaccinated women with and without abortion. Significant predictors of abortion were age>35 years (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.34-6.97, p=0.008), diabetes (OR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.89, p=0.040), and positive consanguinity (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02-0.63, p=0.012). However, spontaneous abortion did not have an increased odds of exposure to COVID-19 vaccines (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.21-5.49, p=0.937). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of abortion in women vaccinated during their first or second trimesters. Further clinical trials are needed to support the evidence of the safety of early vaccination of pregnant women.
ABSTRACT
Background The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created an unprecedented problem in people's lives around the world. Lockdown measures altered the routine lifestyle aspects of people including diet, exercise, sleep, stress, smoking, job status, recreation, and application of modern technologies. Understanding the lifestyle profile of individuals could help in designing effective interventions to minimize the risk factors of COVID-19-related health problems. Objectives The aim of this research is to investigate the lifestyle changes among adults living in Saudi Arabia (SA) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A cross-sectional survey study was done to investigate the lifestyle changes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia from August to September 2020. A pre-designed questionnaire was used for data collection and distributed online through social media. The questionnaire included items about sleep patterns, dietary habits, physical activity, employment status, recreation activities, use of social media, and screen time before and during the pandemic. Results A total of 338 adults with a median age of 40 years participated in the study. During the pandemic, employment, smoking decreased significantly (53.3 vs. 55.6%, p<0.001 & 15.7% vs. 18.3%, p=0.049) with significant increases in daily intake of fruits or vegetables (47% to 60.2%, p<0.001), caffeinated beverages (seven or more times caffeine, 3% vs. 0.9%, p<0.001), and water (more than eight water cups daily, 18.4 vs. 11.9, p<0.001). Overweight group increased significantly from 28.5% to 32% (p=0.009). Sleeping more than nine hours increased significantly from 8.3% to 21.8% (p<0.001) with increasing sleeping aids from 11.6% to 15.7% (p<0.001). Both the screen and the social media times increased significantly for six or more hours daily (14.8% vs. 35.3% and 9.5% vs. 28.2% respectively, p=<0.001 for both). There were significant decreases in socialization (91.4% vs. 37.8%) and fast food (71.98% vs. 47.04%), and increases in physically inactivity (19% vs. 5.3%) and stress (90.8% vs. 85.2%) (p<0.001 for all). Most participants perceived stress during the pandemic (307, 90.8%). Conclusion There were remarkable behavioral changes in all aspects of the lifestyle of the participants living in SA during the COVID-19 pandemic with some positive effects on smoking and dietary habits. However, negative changes included unemployment, physical inactivity, sleep disturbances, social isolation, and excessive weight gain. There is a need to study the possible consequences of such changes on the future population health in SA.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was the first of all coronavirus disease (COVID) vaccines to be used in Saudi Arabia. There have been over 17 million doses already administered to the general public in order to successfully reach herd immunity. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to explore the side effects of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study comprising a sample of 386 participating adults of different age groups and genders. A validated modified questionnaire was distributed as a Google form to residents of the kingdom via social networking sites from February to March 2021. The questionnaire included questions regarding participants' socio-demographic details, vaccination details, and symptom analyses items. RESULTS: The most common to least reported symptoms were local pain (79.3%), fatigue (42%), muscle pain (39.1%), local swelling (27.7%), joint pain (23.1%), headache (21.8%), fever (21.0%), chills (15.5%), local redness (14.8%), nausea (7.3%), with no reports of anaphylaxis, facial paralysis or syncope. There were more side effects after the second dose than the first (p<0.001). Significant predictors of a higher number of side effects after both doses of the vaccine were the female gender ((p<0.001)) and the presence of allergies (p=0.044). CONCLUSION: Pfizer/BioNTech vaccination was quite safe with no reported anaphylaxis or serious events. The most common reported side effects were local pain and fatigue. Symptoms began within 24 hours and were mild to moderate in nature with a regressive course, especially after analgesics. More side effects were experienced after the second dose than the first. The significant predictors of side effects were the female gender and a history of allergies.