ABSTRACT
COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines induce immunity through different mechanisms. The aim of this study is to compare the titers of specific antibodies in subjects vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Sinopharm vaccine. This prospective observational cohort included Jordanian adults vaccinated with two doses, 21 days apart, of either of the two aforementioned vaccines. Titers were collected 6 weeks after the administration of the second dose. Overall, 288 participants were included, of which 141 were administered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, while 147 were administered the Sinopharm vaccine. Remarkably, 140 (99.3%) of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients had positive IgG titers, while 126 (85.7%) of Sinopharm recipients had positive IgG (p < 0.001). The mean titer for IgG among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients was 515.5 ± 1143.5 BAU/mL, compared to 170.0 ± 230.0 BAU/mL among Sinopharm subjects (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine positively correlated with positive IgG titers (OR: 25.25; 95% CI: 3.25-196.15; p = 0.002), compared with a negative effect of cardiovascular diseases (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.11-0.99; p = 0.48) on IgG titers. In conclusion, fully vaccinated recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had superior quantitative efficiency compared to Sinopharm recipients. A booster dose is supported for Sinopharm recipients, or those with chronic immunosuppressive diseases.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Diabetes risk score can be used as a simple non-invasive screening tool for identifying people with high risk of diabetes. This study aimed to assess the predictive power of various risk-scoring systems to predict pre-diabetes and diabetes in Jordanian adults. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among people attending 54 primary health care centers distributed throughout the 12 governorates of Jordan. Diabetes risk scores using the American Diabetes Association risk score, Canadian risk score, Finland risk score (FINDRISC), British Risk score, German and Australian risk score were calculated for each patient. Fasting blood sugar (FBS) was measured for all participants. RESULTS: This study included 392 participants: 231 patients with normal fasting blood sugar (FBG), 101 patients with pre-diabetes and 60 patients with type 2 diabetes. The FINDRISC, British, and Australian risk scores were strongly inter-correlated and weakly correlated with other systems' risk scores. Moreover, they correlated moderately and significantly with FBS. In contrast, other systems risk scores were associated weekly with FBS. Based on receiving operating characteristics (ROC) analysis and multivariate logistic regression, the FINDRISC risk score was superior to other risk scores to predict high FBS and identify pre-diabetes and diabetes. CONCLUSION: FINDRISC risk score performed the best compared to other risk scores for predicting pre-diabetes, diabetes, and absence of diabetes. We recommend using the FINDRISC risk score assessment in Jordan.