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.)

Corticosteroids on the Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV). METHOD: An extensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Central databases until the end of March 2020, using keywords related to corticosteroids, COVID-19, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The main outcome was considered to be the mortality rate, length of stay, virus clearance time, symptom improvement, and lung function improvement. The findings are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Fifteen paper compromising 5 studies on COVID-19, 8 studies on SARS-CoV and 2 studies on MERS-CoV were included. One study was clinical trial and the rest were cohort. The analyses showed that corticosteroids were not reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 (OR=1.08; 95% CI: 0.34 to 3.50) and SARS-CoV (OR=0.77; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.3) patients, while they were associated with higher mortality rate of patients with MERS-CoV (OR = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.41 to 4.50). Moreover, it appears that corticosteroids administration would not be effective in shortening viral clearance time, length of hospitalization, and duration of relief symptoms following viral severe acute respiratory infections. CONCLUSION: There is no evidences that corticosteroids are safe and effective on the treatment of severe acute respiratory infection when COVID-19 disease is suspected. Therefore, corticosteroids prescription in COVID-19 patients should be avoided.

Therapeutic potential of chelerythrine as a multi-purpose adjuvant for the treatment of COVID-19.

Multifunctional nature of phytochemicals and their chemical diversity has attracted attention to develop leads originated from nature to fight COVID-19. Pharmacological activities of chelerythrine and its congeners have been studied and reported in the literature. This compound simultaneously has two key therapeutic effects for the treatment of COVID-19, antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities. Chelerythrine can prevent hyper-inflammatory immune response through regulating critical signaling pathways involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as alteration in Nrf2, NF-κB, and p38 MAPK activities. In addition, chelerythrine has a strong protein kinase C-α/-ß inhibitory activity suitable for cerebral vasospasm prevention and eryptosis reduction, as well as beneficial effects in suppressing pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis. In terms of antiviral activity, chelerythrine can fight with SARS-CoV-2 through various mechanisms, such as direct-acting mechanism, viral RNA-intercalation, and regulation of host-based antiviral targets. Although chelerythrine is toxic in vitro, the in vivo toxicity is significantly reduced due to its structural conversion to alkanolamine. Its multifunctional action makes chelerythrine a prominent compound for the treatment of COVID-19. Considering precautions related to the toxicity at higher doses, it is expected that this compound is useful in combination with proper antivirals to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

The impact of metabolic syndrome on morbidity and mortality among intensive care unit admitted COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Given the limited information describing the connection between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), we aimed to assess the impact of MetS on morbidity and mortality among COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed from 1st April to May 3, 2020 on 157 ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients in Shahid Modarres Hospital in Tehran, Iran. Patients' clinical, laboratory and radiological findings, and subsequent complications, were collected and compared between MetS and non-MetS groups. RESULTS: 74 of all cases had MetS. Among the MetS components, waist circumference (p-value = 0.006 for men; p-value<0.0001 for women), Triglycerides (p-value = 0.002), and Fasting Blood Sugar (p-value = 0.007) were significantly higher in MetS group; with no statistical difference found in HDL levels (p-value = 0.21 for men; p-value = 0.13 for women), systolic blood pressure(p-value = 0.07), and diastolic blood pressure (p-value = 0.18) between two groups. Length of ICU admission (p-value = 0.009), the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (p-value = 0.0001), respiratory failure (p-value = 0.0008), and pressure ulcers (p-value = 0.02) were observed significantly more in MetS group. The Odds Ratio (OR) of mortality with 0(OR = 0.3660), 1(OR = 0.5155), 2(OR = 0.5397), 3(OR = 1.9511), 4(OR = 5.7018), and 5(OR = 8.3740) MetS components showed an increased mortality risk as the components' count increased. The patient with BMI>40 (OR = 6.9368) had more odds of fatality comparing to those with BMI>35 (OR = 4.0690) and BMI>30 (OR = 2.5287). Furthermore, the waist circumference (OR = 8.31; p-value<0.0001) and fasting blood sugar (OR = 2.4588; p-value = 0.0245) were obtained by multivariate logistic regression as independent prognostic factors for mortality. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest a strong relationship between having MetS and increased risk of severe complications and mortality among COVID-19 ICU-admitted patients.

Correlation Between Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography and RT-PCR Results for the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Report of 27,824 Cases in Tehran, Iran.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) remains the gold standard for confirmation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) despite having many disadvantages. Here, we investigated the diagnostic performance of chest computed tomography (CT) as an alternative to RT-PCR in patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 27,824 patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection who underwent unenhanced low-dose chest CT from 20 February, 2020 to 21 May, 2020 were evaluated. Patients were recruited from seven specifically designated hospitals for patients with COVID-19 infection affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. In each hospital, images were interpreted by two independent radiologists. CT findings were considered as positive/negative for COVID-19 infection based on RSNA diagnostic criteria. Then, the correlation between the number of daily positive chest CT scans and number of daily PCR-confirmed cases and COVID-19-related deaths in Tehran province during this three-month period was assessed. The trends of admission rate and patients with positive CT scans were also evaluated. RESULTS: A strong positive correlation between the numbers of daily positive CT scans and daily PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases (r = 0.913, p < 0.001) was observed. Furthermore, in hospitals located in regions with a lower socioeconomic status, the admission rate and number of positive cases within this three-month period was higher as compared to other hospitals. CONCLUSION: Low-dose chest CT is a safe, rapid and reliable alternative to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in high-prevalence regions. In addition, our study provides further evidence for considering patients' socioeconomic status as an important risk factor for COVID-19.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in management of COVID-19; A systematic review on current evidence.

BACKGROUND: Since there is still no definitive conclusion regarding which non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are most effective and safe in viral respiratory infections, we decided to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections so that we can reach a conclusion on which NSAID is best choice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A search was performed in Medline (via PubMed), Embase and CENTRAL databases until 23 March 2020. Clinical trials on application of NSAIDs in viral respiratory infections were included. RESULTS: Six clinical trials were included. No clinical trial has been performed on COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome infections. Studies show that ibuprofen and naproxen not only have positive effects in controlling cold symptoms, but also do not cause serious side effects in rhinovirus infections. In addition, it was found that clarithromycin, naproxen and oseltamivir combination leads to decrease in mortality rate and duration of hospitalisation in patients with pneumonia caused by influenza. CONCLUSION: Although based on existing evidence, NSAIDs have been effective in treating respiratory infections caused by influenza and rhinovirus, since there is no clinical trial on COVID-19 and case-reports and clinical experiences are indicative of elongation of treatment duration and exacerbation of the clinical course of patients with COVID-19, it is recommended to use substitutes such as acetaminophen for controlling fever and inflammation and be cautious about using NSAIDs in management of COVID-19 patients until there are enough evidence. Naproxen may be a good choice for future clinical trials.

Antiviral therapy in management of COVID-19: a systematic review on current evidence.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of antiviral therapies in treatment of COVID-19. In addition, clinical trials on the efficacy of antiviral therapies in the management of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (SARS-Cov) or Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have also been reviewed, in order to identify potential treatment options for COVID-19. METHOD: An extensive search was performed in Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases until the end of March 15, 2020. Two independent researchers performed the screening, and finally the related studies were included. RESULTS: Only one clinical trial on the efficacy of antiviral therapy in management of COVID-19 was found. The results depicted that adding Lopinavir-Ritonavir to the standard treatment regimen of patients with severe COVID-19 has no benefits. Moreover, 21 case-series and case-report studies reported the prescription of antiviral agents in COVID-19, none of which can be used to determine the efficacy of antiviral therapies in confronting COVID-19. In addition, no clinical trials were found to be performed on the efficacy of antiviral agents in the management of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. CONCLUSION: The current evidence impede researchers from proposing an appropriate antiviral therapy against COVID-19, making the current situation a serious concern for international organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO). In the time of the current pandemic and future epidemics, organizations such as WHO should pursue more proactive actions and plan well-designed clinical trials so that their results can be used in managing future epidemics.

Corticosteroids on the Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: We aimed to examine the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV). Method: An extensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Central databases until the end of March 2020, using keywords related to corticosteroids, COVID-19, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. The main outcome was considered to be the mortality rate, length of stay, virus clearance time, symptom improvement, and lung function improvement. The findings are presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: Fifteen paper compromising 5 studies on COVID-19, 8 studies on SARS-CoV and 2 studies on MERS-CoV were included. One study was clinical trial and the rest were cohort. The analyses showed that corticosteroids were not reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 (OR=1.08;95% CI: 0.34 to 3.50) and SARS-CoV (OR=0.77;95% CI: 0.34 to 1.3) patients, while they were associated with higher mortality rate of patients with MERS-CoV (OR = 2.52;95% CI: 1.41 to 4.50). Moreover, it appears that corticosteroids administration would not be effective in shortening viral clearance time, length of hospitalization, and duration of relief symptoms following viral severe acute respiratory infections. Conclusion: There is no evidences that corticosteroids are safe and effective on the treatment of severe acute respiratory infection when COVID-19 disease is suspected. Therefore, corticosteroids prescription in COVID-19 patients should be avoided.