Aortic thrombosis and acute limb ischemia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccination: a case of vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT).

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) is a rare but devastating adverse event associated with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) adenoviral vaccine against the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: A 49-year-old man presented to the emergency department with acute right limb ischemia (Rutherford IIB) nine days after his ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccination. CT angiography revealed significant aortic thrombosis and right femoral artery occlusion. Severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count of 23 × 103/µL), promptly elevated D-dimers (37937 ng/mL) and a reduced fibrinogen level (176 mg/dL) were remarkable. ELISA testing for anti-PF4 antibodies confirmed the diagnosis of VITT. RESULTS: An emergency revascularization of the right leg was provided via thrombectomy. High-dose intravenous immunoglobulins were administered whereafter the platelet count restored gradually. Therapeutic anticoagulation was progressively started. The postoperative course was uneventful and follow-up imaging after four weeks showed an almost complete resolution of the significant aortic thrombosis. CONCLUSION: Early recognition and appropriate counseling of VITT is advocated to pursue a good clinical outcome. Our patient presenting with severe aortic thrombosis and acute limb ischemia was successfully treated by a vascular thrombectomy along with intravenous immunoglobulins and anticoagulation therapy as the mainstay therapy.

Covid-19 vaccine (covishield) heralding Moyamoya angiopathy

Indroduction: Thrombotic complications leading to cerebrovascular events occuring in conjunction with Covid-19 vaccination though rare, is well-documented. Moyamoya Angiopathy is a progressive intracranial vasculopathy leading to recurrent strokes. Case presentation: We present two index cases of young patient presenting with stroke and TIA following Covid-19 vaccination (COVISHIELD) leading to unmasking of Moyamoya Angiopathy. Conclusion(s): Arterial stroke following Covid-19 vaccination is documented, but uncommon. However, in the background of a vasculopathy, it may not be so rare. Moyamoya Angiopathy has been closely studied in the model of inflammatory pathophysiology in genetically predisposed patients leading to progressive vaso-occlusive disease. Few reports of Covid-19 infection potentiating Moyamoya Angiopathy symptoms are also documented. Thus, as an extrapolation of the inflammatory etiopathogenesis of Moyamoya Angiopathy, Covid-19 vaccination can similarly affect the Moyamoya symptomatology. These two index cases open new lines of enquiry regarding the interplay of Covid-19 vaccination and neurological destabilization in patients with underlying vasculopathy of inflammatory pathophysiology.Copyright © 2022

Multiple Evanescent White Dot Syndrome Following Adenovirus Vector-Based COVID-19 Vaccine (Covishield).

PURPOSE: To report a case of multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS) following adenovirus vector-based Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Covishield and to present a summary of previously reported cases of MEWDS following COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: Retrospective case report and review of literature. RESULTS: A 22-year-old Indian female presented with blurred vision, scotomata, and photopsias in her left eye, a day after administration of second dose of Covishield vaccine. Her clinical findings and imaging features confirmed the diagnosis of MEWDS. Her symptoms resolved spontaneously after 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: This is the first reported case of MEWDS following an adenovirus vector-based COVID-19 vaccine. Comparison with previously reported cases of MEWDS following COVID-19 vaccination showed that patients are generally healthy, young to middle-aged women, who develop symptoms after a median time of one week and recover spontaneously over a median period of 4 weeks.

Serious Adverse Events and Fatal Outcomes Following COVID-19 Vaccination in the UK: Lessons for Other Countries

Vaccines have taken the centre stage in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic, and in reducing hospitalisation and associated mortality. Countries around the world are heavily dependent on the successful rollout of their vaccination programmes to open up the societies and re-start their economies. However, the success of any vaccine programme, to a large extent, depends upon the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. Given that UK has been way ahead in vaccinating its population, is considered a successful model compared to other countries in Europe and elsewhere and has a yellow card reporting system for adverse events, we use UK as an example to understand the side effects and fatal outcomes following vaccinations. Our results show that AstraZeneca seems to be underperforming in terms of overall reporting of minor adverse events, serious incidents and fatal outcomes following vaccination. The risk of serious anaphylactic reaction and fatal outcome was 1.36 and 1.17 times more in case of AstraZeneca vaccine when compared with Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. The analysis has implications for vaccine policies and programmes both at nation-state and global levels.

"Sinopharm", "Oxford-AstraZeneca", and "Pfizer-BioNTech" COVID-19 vaccinations: testing efficacy using lung CT-volumetry with comparative analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Background: Several clinical studies tested the efficacy of the different COVID-19 vaccinations while very few radiological researches targeted this issue before. Aim of the work: To verify the additive role of lung CT-Volumetry in testing the efficacy of three widely distributed COVID-19 vaccinations;namely the "Sinopharm", "Oxford-AstraZeneca", and "Pfizer-BioNTech" vaccinations, with comparative analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: This study was retrospectively conducted on 341 COVID-19 patients during the period between June/2021 and March/2022. Based on the immunization status, they were divided into four groups;group (A) included 156/341 (46%) patients who did not receive any vaccination (control group), group (B) included 92/341 (27%) patients who received "Sinopharm" vaccine, group (C) included 55/341 (16%) patients who received "Oxford-AstraZeneca" vaccine, group (D) included 38/341 (11%) patients who received "Pfizer-BioNTech" vaccine. Every group was subdivided based on the medical history into three groups;group (1) patients without comorbidities, group (2) patients with comorbidities, and group (3) immunocompromised patients. Automated CT volumetry was calculated for the pathological lung parenchyma. Five CT-severity scores were provided (score 0 = 0%, score 1 = 1–25%, score 2 = 25–50%, score 3 = 51–75%, and score 4 = 76–100%). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) including Tukey HSD testing was utilized in comparison to the non-immunized patients. The "Phizer-Biontech" vaccine succeeded to eliminate severity in patients without and with comorbidity, and also decreased severity in immunocompromised patients (from 79 to 17%). The "Oxford-AstraZeneca" vaccine and to a lesser extent "Sinopharm" vaccine also decreased the clinical severity in patients with comorbidities and immunocompromised patients (from 15 to 9% & 10% as well as from 79 to 20% & 50% respectively). Significant variance was proved regarding the use of "Sinopharm", "Oxford-AstraZeneca", and "Phizer-Biontech" vaccines in patients without comorbidities (f-ratio averaged 4.0282, 10.8049, and 8.4404 respectively, also p-value averaged 0.04632, 0.001268, and 0.004294). Significant variance was proved regarding the use of "Oxford-AstraZeneca", and "Phizer-Biontech" vaccines in patients with comorbidities and immunocompromised patients (f-ratio averaged 4.7521, and 4.1682 as well as 11.7811, and 15.6 respectively, also p-value averaged 0.03492, and 0.04857, as well as both 0.003177, and 0.0009394 respectively, all < 0.05). No significant variance was proved regarding the use of the "Sinopharm" vaccine. Conclusions: In addition to the decline of clinical severity rates & CT severity scores, a significant variance was proved regarding the use of the "Sinopharm", "Oxford-AstraZeneca", and "Phizer-Biontech" vaccines in patients without comorbidities. Significant variance was also proved regarding the use of the "Oxford-AstraZeneca" and "Phizer-Biontech" vaccines in patients with comorbidities and immunocompromised patients. Despite that, no significant variance could be proved regarding the use of the "Sinopharm" vaccine in these patients, it decreases the percentage of clinical severity and CT severity scores. © 2023, The Author(s).

Comparison of antibody responses before and after booster doses with the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines in healthcare workers in Thailand.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread rapidly worldwide, not only causing significant morbidity and mortality but also dramatically increasing health care spending. To manage this in Thailand, healthcare workers first received two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine followed by a booster vaccine with either BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech; PZ) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (Oxford-AstraZeneca; AZ). Given that the difference in anti-SARS-CoV-2 levels following vaccination may vary depending on the vaccine and on demographic characteristics, we measured the antibody response after the second CoronaVac dose and after the booster with either the PZ or AZ vaccine. Our results in 473 healthcare workers show that the variation in antibody response to the full CoronaVac dose depends on demographic characteristics such as age, gender, body mass index, and underlying disease. After receiving a booster dose, anti-SARS-CoV-2 levels were significantly higher in participants who received the PZ vaccine than in people who received the AZ vaccine. Overall, however, receiving a booster dose of either the PZ or AZ vaccine promoted strong antibody responses, even in the old and those with obesity or diabetes mellitus. In conclusion, our results support the use of a booster vaccination program after full vaccination with the CoronaVac vaccine. This approach effectively enhances immunity against SARS-CoV-2, especially in clinically vulnerable groups and healthcare workers.

Comparison of Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of Five Primary Series of COVID-19 Vaccine Regimens against Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern among Healthy Thai Populations.

To compare immunogenicity and reactogenicity of five COVID-19 vaccine regimens against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern (VoCs) among Thai populations, a prospective cohort study was conducted among healthy participants aged ≥18 years who had never been infected with COVID-19 and were scheduled to get one of the five primary series of COVID-19 vaccine regimens, including CoronaVac/CoronaVac, AZD1222/AZD1222, CoronaVac/AZD1222, AZD1222/BNT162b2, and BNT162b2/BNT162b2. Anti-receptor binding domain (anti-RBD-WT) IgG and neutralizing antibody (NAb-WT) against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 were measured at pre-prime, post-prime, and post-boost visits. NAb against VoCs (NAb-Alpha, NAb-Beta, NAb-Delta, and NAb-Omicron) were assessed at the post-boost visit. Adverse events (AEs) following vaccination were recorded. A total of 901 participants (CoronaVac/CoronaVac: 332, AZD1222/AZD1222: 221, CoronaVac/AZD1222: 110, AZD1222/BNT162b2: 128, and BNT162b2/BNT162b2: 110) were enrolled. Anti-RBD-WT IgG and NAb-WT levels increased substantially after each vaccine dose. At the post-boost visit, BNT162b2/BNT162b2 induced the highest GMC of anti-RBD-WT IgG level (1698 BAU/mL), whereas AZD1222/BNT162b2 induced the highest median NAb-WT level (99% inhibition). NAb levels against VoCs, particularly the Omicron strain, were markedly attenuated for all vaccine regimens (p < 0.001). Overall, no serious AEs following vaccination were observed. All five primary series of COVID-19 vaccine regimens were well-tolerated and elicited robust antibody responses against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 but had attenuated responses against VoCs, particularly the Omicron strain, among healthy Thai populations.

ZnO-Based Electrochemical Immunosensor to Assess Vaccine-Induced Antibody-Mediated Immunity against Wild-Type and Gamma SARS-CoV-2 Strains.

The evaluation of serological responses to COVID-19 is crucial for population-level surveillance, developing new vaccines, and evaluating the efficacy of different immunization programs. Research and development of point-of-care test technologies remain essential to improving immunity assessment, especially for SARS-CoV-2 variants that partially evade vaccine-induced immune responses. In this work, an impedimetric biosensor based on the immobilization of the recombinant trimeric wild-type spike protein (S protein) on zinc oxide nanorods (ZnONRs) was employed for serological evaluation. We successfully assessed its applicability using serum samples from spike-based COVID-19 vaccines: ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech). Overall, the ZnONRs/ spike-modified electrode displayed accurate results for both vaccines, showing excellent potential as a tool for assessing and monitoring seroprevalence in the population. A refined outcome of this technology was achieved when the ZnO immunosensor was functionalized with the S protein from the P.1 linage (Gamma variant). Serological responses against samples from vaccinated individuals were acquired with excellent performance. Following studies based on traditional serological tests, the ZnONRs/spike immunosensor data reveal that ChAdOx1-S vaccinated individuals present significantly less antibody-mediated immunity against the Gamma variant than the BNT162b2 vaccine, highlighting the great potential of this point-of-care technology for evaluating vaccine-induced humoral immunity against different SARS-CoV-2 strains.

Effectiveness of two COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated viral vaccine) against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021. To assess VE, we calculated VE=1-RR (rate ratio), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of COVID-19 infection as the outcome, and the vaccination status as the main exploratory variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age and job types. RESULTS: 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVacvaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 infection cases happened in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVacvaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (p-value< 0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need of mechanical ventilation. Nineteen SARSCoV-2 samples from nineteen HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Eighteen out of nineteen of those samples were Gamma SARS-CoV-2 variant. CONCLUSIONS: While both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 infection among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective even against a dominant Gamma variant.

An Immunological Review of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccine Serology: Innate and Adaptive Responses to mRNA, Adenovirus, Inactivated and Protein Subunit Vaccines.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, which is defined by its positive-sense single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) structure. It is in the order Nidovirales, suborder Coronaviridae, genus Betacoronavirus, and sub-genus Sarbecovirus (lineage B), together with two bat-derived strains with a 96% genomic homology with other bat coronaviruses (BatCoVand RaTG13). Thus far, two Alphacoronavirus strains, HCoV-229E and HCoV-NL63, along with five Betacoronaviruses, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-OC43, SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2, have been recognized as human coronaviruses (HCoVs). SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in more than six million deaths worldwide since late 2019. The appearance of this novel virus is defined by its high and variable transmission rate (RT) and coexisting asymptomatic and symptomatic propagation within and across animal populations, which has a longer-lasting impact. Most current therapeutic methods aim to reduce the severity of COVID-19 hospitalization and virus symptoms, preventing the infection from progressing from acute to chronic in vulnerable populations. Now, pharmacological interventions including vaccines and others exist, with research ongoing. The only ethical approach to developing herd immunity is to develop and provide vaccines and therapeutics that can potentially improve on the innate and adaptive system responses at the same time. Therefore, several vaccines have been developed to provide acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 induced COVID-19-disease. The initial evaluations of the COVID-19 vaccines began in around 2020, followed by clinical trials carried out during the pandemic with ongoing population adverse effect monitoring by respective regulatory agencies. Therefore, durability and immunity provided by current vaccines requires further characterization with more extensive available data, as is presented in this paper. When utilized globally, these vaccines may create an unidentified pattern of antibody responses or memory B and T cell responses that need to be further researched, some of which can now be compared within laboratory and population studies here. Several COVID-19 vaccine immunogens have been presented in clinical trials to assess their safety and efficacy, inducing cellular antibody production through cellular B and T cell interactions that protect against infection. This response is defined by virus-specific antibodies (anti-N or anti-S antibodies), with B and T cell characterization undergoing extensive research. In this article, we review four types of contemporary COVID-19 vaccines, comparing their antibody profiles and cellular aspects involved in coronavirus immunology across several population studies.

Effectiveness of heterologous COVID-19 vaccine booster dosing in Brazilian healthcare workers, 2021.

OBJECTIVES: Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either two doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1-IRR (incidence rate ratio), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (two doses) to those who received an mRNA booster. RESULTS: A total of 11,427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine vs. 0.9% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (p < 0.001), and 9.8% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine vs. 1% among HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (p < 0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for two CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster, and 60.2% for two ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared to those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. CONCLUSIONS: While two doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

Development of facial palsy following COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review.

Objective: Reports of facial palsy occurring after the receipt of COVID-19 vaccines have raised concerns but are rare. The purpose of this study is to systematically assess the association between COVID-19 vaccination and facial palsy. Methods: Our systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist and compiled all the reported cases of facial palsy post-COVID-19 vaccination. We discussed the probable pathophysiology behind facial palsy as a consequence of COVID-19 vaccination and measures to be taken for future reference. Furthermore, we conducted a detailed assessment of characteristics, clinical courses, treatment, and recovery of patients with facial palsy after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Results: We included 37 studies providing data on 58 individuals in our review. Over half (51.72%) of the patients complained of facial paralysis following the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccination. Out of 51 cases, most (88.24%) occurred after the 1st dose. The majority (53.45%) of cases had bilateral facial palsy. Intravenous immunoglobin (IVIg), corticosteroids, and plasmapheresis were the first line of treatment with 75.93% of patients partially recovered, including those undergoing treatment or a lack of follow-up till the end while 22.22% had complete symptomatic recovery. Conclusions: Our review shows that Bell's palsy can be a plausible non-serious adverse effect of COVID-19 vaccination. However, the association observed between COVID-19 vaccination and Bell's palsy is less threatening than the COVID-19 infection. Hence, vaccination should be encouraged because facial palsy, if it occurs, has shown favourable outcomes with treatment.

Adverse Effects of Pfizer (BioNTech), Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 CoV-19), and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines among the Adult Population in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has caused massive damage to the global healthcare system and economy. To compete with the SARS-COV-2 pandemic, several vaccines have been proposed to immunize the population. The present study aimed to investigate the adverse effects following the three doses of COVID-19 vaccination, Pfizer (BioNTech), (Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 CoV-19), and Moderna among the adult population in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia. In this study, the total number of participants were 426, among them 277 (65%) were females and 149 (35%) were males. An online survey using Google forms in the English language and translated into the Arabic language was used to record the information. The questionnaire was distributed to participants who received either Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca or Moderna vaccines. The general characteristics of participants were obtained, alongside an evaluation of the vaccination's adverse effects. The results revealed that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines caused significantly less adverse effects than Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Moderna (p < 0.001), and females experienced more adverse effects after vaccination compared to males. Injection site pain was the most common adverse event among the participants (60.6%), followed by fatigue, headache, and pain (43.9%), muscle and joint pain (32.4%), increased body temperature and shivering (24.2%). In addition, the group of individuals under the age of sixty was more likely to experience side effects than the participants with other age groups. All three vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 CoV-19) and Moderna, cause post-vaccinal adverse effects; however, Moderna and Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) causes adverse effects more frequently than the Pfizer-BioNTech.

Signs, Symptoms, and Side-Effects Presented by Different Types of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Prospective Cohort Study.

The concern about post-COVID-19 vaccine complications still remains. In addition, the evidence on Sinopharm, Sputnik V, Covaxin, and, in particular, COVIran Barekat, as well as comparisons between them by dosage after post-vaccination, is scarce. This study aimed to investigate and compare the prevalence of self-reported post-vaccination signs and symptoms following the first and second doses of different types of COVID-19 vaccines. Research design and methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted on more than 1500 health professionals who had received at least one dose of any type of Sputnik V, Sinopharm, Oxford AstraZeneca, Covaxin, and COVIran Barekat vaccines in Iran. The survey questionnaire was sent to participants online, 28 days after receiving each dose of the vaccine. Results: About 73% of health professionals reported at least one post-vaccination sign or symptom, developing mostly within the first 12 h (69.9%) and lasting up to 12 h (59.0%). Pain and tenderness at the injection site, fever, and muscle pain were the most common post-vaccination signs and symptoms in all vaccines, which were significantly higher in the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine (p < 0.001) for both the first and second doses. The incidence rate of all post-vaccination signs and symptoms was significantly higher in the first dose than in the second dose (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine showed the highest incidence rate, onset, and lasting time of signs and symptoms in both doses; however, they were not life-threatening. The onset time of signs and symptoms was significantly higher for the COVIran Barekat and Oxford AstraZeneca vaccines in both the first and second doses.

Evaluate the side effect associated with COVID-19 vaccine on adolescents in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A cross-section study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the side effects of Pizer- BioNTech mRNA (BNT162b2) and Spikevax (mRNA- 1273) Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines on adolescents in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire was carried out among COVID-19 vaccine adolescent recipients in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. After receiving at least one dose of each vaccine, general and demographic data were collected, and vaccine-related side effects were evaluated. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 604 participants with a majority age group of 16-17 years old. Approximately 89.1% of the study participants were female. Most participants reported pain at the injection site (85.1% 1st dose, 79.8% 2nd dose), feeling tired, and headache (58.6% 1st dose, 64.2% 2nd dose). Moreover, we found that patients who took the first dose and had a chronic disease had 2.4 times higher odds of having menstrual disorder (females) than non-chronic disease patients (p=0.03) and 4.5 times higher odds of exhibiting breathing congestion (p=0.01). In addition, patients with chronic disease had 2.4 times higher odds of exhibiting muscle and joint pain and dizziness than non-chronic disease patients (p=0.01, p=0.02). Males were less likely to have dizziness after the first dose than females (OR=0.26, p=0.01). CONCLUSION: This study investigates the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines among adolescents in Riyadh. As a result, this study creates a database to inform people about the risk of experiencing side effects based on their gender, age, and the vaccine type; more investigation is needed to better understand the link between risk factors and the development of adverse effects.

Side-Effects following Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine in Tororo District, Eastern Uganda: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Effective, safe and proven vaccines would be the most effective strategy against the COVID-19 pandemic but have faced rollout challenges partly due to fear of potential side-effects. We assessed the prevalence, profiles, and predictors of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine side-effects in Tororo district of Eastern Uganda. We conducted telephone interviews with 2204 participants between October 2021 and January 2022. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to assess factors associated with Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine side-effects using Stata version 15.0. A total of 603/2204 (27.4%) of the participants experienced one or more side-effects (local, systemic, allergic, and other side-effects). Of these, 253/603 (42.0%) experienced local side-effects, 449/603 (74.5%) experienced systemic side-effects, 11/603 (1.8%) experienced allergic reactions, and 166/603 (27.5%) experienced other side-effects. Ten participants declined to receive the second dose because of side-effects they had experienced after the first dose. Previous infection with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 4.3, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 2.7-7.0), being female (AOR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) and being a security officer (AOR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-0.6) were associated with side-effects to the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. We recommend campaigns to disseminate correct information about potential side-effects of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and strengthen surveillance for adverse events following vaccination.

Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis following intracerebral hemorrhage after COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccination: A case report.

The patient was a 55-year-old female patient who presented with sudden onset of left hemiplegia, facial hemiparesis, and hypoesthesia. She has received her first dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. This case indicates that vaccination may raise the hypercoagulable state even in a condition of post-ICH and anticoagulant prophylaxis.

Maintenance of Antibody Response in Egyptian Healthcare Workers Vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine during Delta and Omicron Variants Pandemic: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a constantly evolving virus, resulting in an increased burden on the existing COVID-19 vaccines. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are the first line of defense against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and have been prioritized among the risk categories receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. This work aimed to investigate the maintenance of antibody response of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1/nCoV-19). METHODS: Anti-spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) was measured at baseline point (immediately prior to vaccination) and 12- and 24-week (w) points following vaccination. Adverse reactions to the vaccine were reported. Participants were followed up for the incidence of COVID-19 during the 12 w interval between vaccination doses for 24 w after the second dose. RESULTS: A total of 255 HCWs participated in the study. Prior to vaccination, 54.1% experienced COVID-19, 88.2% were seropositive after the first dose, while seropositivity reached 95.7% after the second dose. Following the first and second doses, the anti-spike IgG serum level was significantly higher in subjects with past COVID-19 than in others (p < 0.001 and =0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is generally safe and provides a highly effective long-term humoral immune response against the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.

A study on seroconversion following first & second doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in Central Kerala.

Background & objectives: Vaccination against COVID-19 induces spike protein-binding IgG antibodies, a robust correlate of protection against COVID-19. This study was undertaken to assess the humoral response after completion of both the doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV vaccine in healthcare workers (HCWs) at a tertiary care health centre in India. Methods: A cross-sectional COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody study was conducted among HCWs. IgG antibodies against spike protein were measured at least 28 days after the first dose and the second dose of vaccination in both SARS CoV-2 naïve and recovered HCWs. Mean and median antibody titre following each dose of vaccine and its association with age, gender, co-morbidities and factors such as exercise, stress and sleep deprivation were also explored. Results: Among the 200 vaccine recipients, 91.5 per cent showed seroconversion after the first dose and 99.5 per cent after the second dose. The mean titre after the second dose was significantly higher when compared to the first dose (12.68±4.17 vs. 9.83±6.3, P=0.001). More than half (54%) had high antibody titre ≥12 S/Co (Signal/cut-off). Previous COVID-19 infection was the single most important factor influencing antibody production, where the mean titre just after a single dose [mean-17.81±5.94, median-20.5 (interquartile range [IQR]-3.7)] surpassed the titre after the second dose in SARS CoV-2 naïve individuals [mean-12.29±4.00, median-12.8 (IQR-3.7), P=0.001]. Furthermore, 28 per cent of vaccinees showed a reduction in titre after the second dose. The mean fall in titre was 2.25±1.40 and was more pronounced in males, the younger age group and those with previous COVID-19 infection. Interpretation & conclusions: ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine after two doses elicited an excellent immune response. However, greater immunogenicity after the first dose was seen among those with previous COVID-19 infection, even surpassing the titre achieved by the second dose of vaccine in SARS CoV-2 naïve recipients. A fall in antibody titre after the second dose is a matter of concern and requires further studies.

Vitamin D Supplementation Does Not Influence SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Efficacy or Immunogenicity: Sub-Studies Nested within the CORONAVIT Randomised Controlled Trial.

Vitamin D deficiency has been reported to associate with the impaired development of antigen-specific responses following vaccination. We aimed to determine whether vitamin D supplements might boost the immunogenicity and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination by conducting three sub-studies nested within the CORONAVIT randomised controlled trial, which investigated the effects of offering vitamin D supplements at a dose of 800 IU/day or 3200 IU/day vs. no offer on risk of acute respiratory infections in UK adults with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations <75 nmol/L. Sub-study 1 (n = 2808) investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection following two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Sub-study 2 (n = 1853) investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on titres of combined IgG, IgA and IgM (IgGAM) anti-Spike antibodies in eluates of dried blood spots collected after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Sub-study 3 (n = 100) investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on neutralising antibody and cellular responses in venous blood samples collected after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. In total, 1945/2808 (69.3%) sub-study 1 participants received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca); the remainder received two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer). Mean follow-up 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly elevated in the 800 IU/day vs. no-offer group (82.5 vs. 53.6 nmol/L; mean difference 28.8 nmol/L, 95% CI 22.8-34.8) and in the 3200 IU/day vs. no offer group (105.4 vs. 53.6 nmol/L; mean difference 51.7 nmol/L, 45.1-58.4). Vitamin D supplementation did not influence the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated participants (800 IU/day vs. no offer: adjusted hazard ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.84; 3200 IU/day vs. no offer: 1.17, 0.81 to 1.70). Neither did it influence IgGAM anti-Spike titres, neutralising antibody titres or IFN-γ concentrations in the supernatants of S peptide-stimulated whole blood. In conclusion, vitamin D replacement at a dose of 800 or 3200 IU/day effectively elevated 25(OH)D concentrations, but it did not influence the protective efficacy or immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination when given to adults who had a sub-optimal vitamin D status at baseline.