ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Severe stages of COVID-19 infection have been associated with the excessive discharge of pro-inflammatory mediators such as cytokines, resulting in lung deterioration, which progresses rapidly to lung fibrosis leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome. In this investigation, the efficacy and safety of the novel antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory agent, Pirfenidone, were assessed in COVID-19 patients with pulmonary fibrosis secondary to cytokine storm. In this randomized controlled study, we assigned 100 adult COVID-19 patients cytokine storm and admitted to the intensive care isolation unit into either pirfenidone added to the standard therapy (n = 47), or the standard protocol only (n = 53). High-resolution computed tomography of the chest was performed in all patients to evaluate fibrotic lesions and their progression. The results showed that the percentage of patients who developed pulmonary fibrosis during cytokine storm onset in the pirfenidone group relative to the standard group was 29.8% and 35.8%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups; while there was a significant increase in the proportion of patients discharged from the isolation unit with pulmonary fibrosis without progression in fibrotic lesions in the pirfenidone group compared to the standard group (21.3% and 5.7%, respectively). Furthermore, there was a significant difference concerning liver enzyme elevation and GIT disturbance incidences in the studied groups (p = 0.006 and 0.01, respectively). Our findings show that Pirfenidone inhibits fibrosis advancement in COVID-19 patients with pulmonary fibrosis and is associated with hepatotoxicity and GI distress. It may be beneficial in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19-induced pulmonary fibrosis; however, additional research is necessary.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Awareness about the COVID-19 vaccine's adverse effects is crucial for gaining public trust. As we still lack proof of vaccines' safety, this survey aimed to investigate Egyptians' general awareness of the Sinopharm and AstraZeneca vaccines against COVID-19 and provide considerable evidence on their side effects and complications. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted in Egypt between 20 September and 10 October in 2021, with multiple-choice questions (MCQs) covering all data on vaccine administration confusion, adverse effects or intensity, and complications. RESULTS: Among the 390 participants, 42.3% reported being hesitant before receiving one of the vaccines. About 40.3% of participants were previously infected before getting vaccinated while only 4.6% reported being infected after vaccination. The AstraZeneca vaccine demonstrated higher side effects and symptoms than the Sinopharm vaccine while the Sinopharm vaccine showed a significantly higher rate of COVID-19 infection after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: People with higher educational levels and chronic respiratory diseases represent an excellent model for accepting COVID-19 vaccination. A booster shot is recommended for people vaccinated with the Sinopharm vaccine due to a significantly higher rate of COVID-19 infection after vaccination; however, the Sinopharm vaccine shows a more acceptable safety profile.
ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had different waves within the same country. The spread rate and severity showed different properties within the COVID-19 different waves. The present work aims to compare the spread and the severity of the different waves using the available data of confirmed COVID-19 cases and death cases. Real-data sets collected from the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science were used to perform a comparative study between COVID-19 different waves in 12 countries with the highest total performed tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 detection in the world (Italy, Brazil, Japan, Germany, Spain, India, USA, UAE, Poland, Colombia, Turkey, and Switzerland). The total number of confirmed cases and death cases in different waves of COVID-19 were compared to that of the previous one for equivalent periods. The total number of death cases in each wave was presented as a percentage of the total number of confirmed cases for the same periods. In all the selected 12 countries, Wave 2 had a much higher number of confirmed cases than that in Wave 1. However, the death cases increase was not comparable with that of the confirmed cases to the extent that some countries had lower death cases than in Wave 1, UAE, and Spain. The death cases as a percentage of the total number of confirmed cases in Wave 1 were much higher than that in Wave 2. Some countries have had Waves 3 and 4. Waves 3 and 4 have had lower confirmed cases than Wave 2, however, the death cases were variable in different countries. The death cases in Waves 3 and 4 were similar to or higher than Wave 2 in most countries. Wave 2 of COVID-19 had a much higher spread rate but much lower severity resulting in a lower death rate in Wave 2 compared with that of the first wave. Waves 3 and 4 have had lower confirmed cases than Wave 2; that could be due to the presence of appropriate treatment and vaccination. However, that was not reflected in the death cases, which were similar to or higher than Wave 2 in most countries. Further studies are needed to explain these findings.