Acute Adverse Events After BNT162b2 mRNA and Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in People who had COVID-19 Vaccines

Objective: Considering the classical vaccine development processes, COVID-19 vaccines were developed in a concise period. However, safety cannot be compromised for the rapid development of vaccines. Therefore, we aimed to in-vestigate and compare the incidence of acute adverse events between vaccine doses and vaccine types in patients who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 and those who were not.Method: The study was conducted prospectively between July 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and the Sinovac inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) were recruited in the cohort study. The cohort was divided into two vaccine categories and sub-branches: those with COVID-19 in each vaccine category and those without. Eight days after the vaccination, all participants in the cohort were provided with an assessment questionnaire regarding the adverse events they experienced.Results: A total of 1607 vaccine doses were followed in the study, 18.7% (n=301) of which were the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 81.3% (n=1306) were the BNT162b2 vaccine. According to the statistics, the risk of developing adverse events with the BNT162b2 vaccine was shown to be 5.8 times higher than the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (OR: 5.83;95% CI: 4.34-7.84). In addition, the risk of suffering such adverse events was 1.6 times higher in patients who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 (OR: 1.61;95% CI: 1.29-2.00) as opposed to patients who were not.Conclusion: Based on the results, we can conclude that acute adverse events were more prevalent after vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine than the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Furthermore, compared to those who did not have COVID-19, it was evident that patients who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 were prone to experience mild, temporary, and manageable adverse events.

Acute Adverse Events After BNT162b2 mRNA and Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in People who had COVID-19 Vaccines.

Objective: Considering the classical vaccine development processes, COVID-19 vaccines were developed in a concise period. However, safety cannot be compromised for the rapid development of vaccines. Therefore, we aimed to in-vestigate and compare the incidence of acute adverse events between vaccine doses and vaccine types in patients who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 and those who were not. Method(s): The study was conducted prospectively between July 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and the Sinovac inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) were recruited in the cohort study. The cohort was divided into two vaccine categories and sub-branches: those with COVID-19 in each vaccine category and those without. Eight days after the vaccination, all participants in the cohort were provided with an assessment questionnaire regarding the adverse events they experienced. Result(s): A total of 1607 vaccine doses were followed in the study, 18.7% (n=301) of which were the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 81.3% (n=1306) were the BNT162b2 vaccine. According to the statistics, the risk of developing adverse events with the BNT162b2 vaccine was shown to be 5.8 times higher than the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (OR: 5.83;95% CI: 4.34-7.84). In addition, the risk of suffering such adverse events was 1.6 times higher in patients who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 (OR: 1.61;95% CI: 1.29-2.00) as opposed to patients who were not. Conclusion(s): Based on the results, we can conclude that acute adverse events were more prevalent after vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine than the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Furthermore, compared to those who did not have COVID-19, it was evident that patients who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 were prone to experience mild, temporary, and manageable adverse events. Copyright © 2022, DOC Design and Informatics Co. Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Acute Adverse Events After BNT162b2 mRNA and Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in People who had COVID-19 Vaccines

Objective: Considering the classical vaccine development processes, COVID-19 vaccines were developed in a concise period. However, safety cannot be compromised for the rapid development of vaccines. Therefore, we aimed to in-vestigate and compare the incidence of acute adverse events between vaccine doses and vaccine types in patients who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 and those who were not. Method(s): The study was conducted prospectively between July 1, 2021, and October 31, 2021. Participants who were vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and the Sinovac inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) were recruited in the cohort study. The cohort was divided into two vaccine categories and sub-branches: those with COVID-19 in each vaccine category and those without. Eight days after the vaccination, all participants in the cohort were provided with an assessment questionnaire regarding the adverse events they experienced. Result(s): A total of 1607 vaccine doses were followed in the study, 18.7% (n=301) of which were the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 81.3% (n=1306) were the BNT162b2 vaccine. According to the statistics, the risk of developing adverse events with the BNT162b2 vaccine was shown to be 5.8 times higher than the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (OR: 5.83;95% CI: 4.34-7.84). In addition, the risk of suffering such adverse events was 1.6 times higher in patients who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 (OR: 1.61;95% CI: 1.29-2.00) as opposed to patients who were not. Conclusion(s): Based on the results, we can conclude that acute adverse events were more prevalent after vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine than the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Furthermore, compared to those who did not have COVID-19, it was evident that patients who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 were prone to experience mild, temporary, and manageable adverse events. Copyright © 2022, DOC Design and Informatics Co. Ltd.. All rights reserved.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in healthcare workers: does gender matter?

Objective: Immunization by vaccination has a crucial role in controlling COVID-19 pandemic. Determination of the factors affecting the effectiveness of the vaccine can increase the success rates. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of CoronaVac and factors affecting its effectiveness in healthcare workers.

Strengthening infection prevention and control programme in Turkey according to WHO's multimodal strategy

Introduction: Implementation of WHO's multimodal (MM) strategy is essential for strengthening infection prevention and control programme (IPC) in a country. Objectives: To share the experience of Turkey about the strengthening infection prevention and control programme. Methods: In Turkey, structured IPC (infection control committees, training, surveillance, hand hygiene activities) has been put into practice since 2006 by MoH. However, after 2018 MoH focused on IPC core components for strengthening IPC. Electronic surveillance was strengthened. Turkey signed the pledge of hand hygiene and Train the Trainers (TTT) programme was organised for standardized approach based on the WHO' MM Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy. In TTT programme, 34 IPC professionals from 18 hospitals were trained for multimodal HH improvement strategy and a short TTT programme was organized with 32 participants in the largest teaching hospital in Turkey. After Covid-19 pandemic, videos about multimodal hand hygiene strategy were used for e-learning by MoH. To this e-learning programme, 1845 IPC professionals registered and 1287 of them completed. National Infection Control Committee was established in 2018 and National Infection Control Programme and Action Plan was introduced in 2019. The Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework (HHSAF) was first used nationally in 2019 for the documentation of HH situation and also focus on the future plans and challenges. HHSAF was translated in Turkish to increase participation of facilities. Results: HHSAF was sent to 216 hospitals and 125 (58%) submitted their HHSAF. Of these hospitals, 92 (74%) were state hospital, 20 (16%) were university hospital and 13 (10%) were private hospital. Responses to HHSAF questions related to key indicators of the WHO improvement strategy implementation were shown in Figure 1. Conclusion: The survey shows that improvement was achieved on having alcohol-based handrubs available, undertaking staff training, evaluation and feedback and displaying posters on hand hygiene around their hospital. However, a dedicated budget in infection control and improvements in institutional safety climate are gaps that should be focused on. (Figure Presented).