ABSTRACT
Objective To explore the potential common mechanism and active ingredients of Reduning Injection against SARS, MERS and COVID-19 through network pharmacology and molecular docking technology. Methods The TCMSP database was used to retrieve the chemical components and targets of Artemisiae Annuae Herba, Lonicerae Japonicae Flos and Gardeniae Fructus in Reduning Injection. The gene corresponding to the target was searched by UniProt database, and Cytoscape 3.8.2 was used to build a medicinal material-compound-target (gene) network. Three coronavirus-related targets were collected in the Gene Cards database with the key words of "SARS""MERS" and "COVID-19", and common target of three coronavirus infection diseases were screened out through Venny 2.1.0 database. The common targets of SARS, MERS and COVID-19 were intersected with the targets of Reduning Injection, and the common targets were selected as research targets. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network map were constructed by Cytoscape3.8.2 software after importing the common targets into the STRING database to obtain data. R language was used to carry out GO biological function enrichment analysis and KEGG signaling pathway enrichment analysis, histograms and bubble charts were drew, and component-target-pathway network diagrams was constructed. The key compounds in the component-target-pathway network were selected for molecular docking with important target proteins, novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) 3CL hydrolase, and angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2). Results 31 active compounds and 207 corresponding targets were obtained from Reduning Injection. 2 453 SARS-related targets, 805 MERS-related targets, 2 571 COVID-19-related targets, and 786 targets for the three diseases. 11 common targets with Reduning Injection: HSPA5, CRP, MAPK1, HMOX1, TGFB1, HSP90AA1, TP53, DPP4, CXCL10, PLAT, PRKACA. GO function enrichment analysis revealed 995 biological processes (BP), 71 molecular functions (MF), and 31 cellular components (CC). KEGG pathway enrichment analysis screened 99 signal pathways (P < 0.05), mainly related to prostate cancer, fluid shear stress and atherosclerosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, proteoglycans in cancer, lipid and atherosclerosis, human T-cell leukemia virus 1 infection, MAPK signaling pathway, etc. The molecular docking results showed that the three core active flavonoids of quercetin, luteolin, and kaempferol in Reduning Injection had good affinity with key targets MAPK1, PRKACA, and HSP90AA1, and the combination of the three active compounds with SARS-CoV-2 3CL hydrolase and ACE2 was less than the recommended chemical drugs. Conclusion Reduning Injection has potential common effects on the three diseases of SARS, MERS and COVID-19. This effect may be related to those active compounds such as quercetin, luteolin, and kaempferol acting on targets such as MAPK1, PRKACA, HSP90AA1 to regulate multiple signal pathways and exert anti-virus, suppression of inflammatory storm, and regulation of immune function.Copyright © 2022 Drug Evaluation Research. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) poses expectant mothers to a higher risk of serious complications and mortality. Following a risk-benefit review, a number of governmental and professional bodies from across the globe recently approved the COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Aim(s): This study aimed to investigate knowledge, actual acceptance, and concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine among the obstetric population. Material(s) and Method(s): Participants were selected from among the expecting women who came for antenatal checkup during the study period (October 1, 2021-November 30, 2021). About 150 pregnant women who met the inclusion criteria and consented were recruited into the study. Data related to socio-demographic and clinical characteristics as well as knowledge, actual acceptance, and concerns about COVID-19 vaccine were collected through in-person interviews using a prestructured questionnaire. The SPSS version 23 was used to analyze data. The association between the attitude (acceptance and hesitance) of participants toward the COVID-19 vaccine and their sociodemographic and clinical profile was found by Fisher's exact test. Result(s): The actual acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine among expecting women was 52.0%. The primary motive for accepting COVID-19 immunization was to protect the fetus, followed by the protection of one's own health. A significant association was found between COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and the level of education, socio-economic status, and presence of comorbidities. The leading causes for vaccine reluctance were concerns about the efficacy and safety of the vaccines and lack of awareness about their usage during pregnancy. Conclusion(s): Multifaceted activities are required to promote the effectiveness and safety profile of the COVID-19 vaccine as well as disseminate knowledge about its usage during pregnancy. Clinical significance: Unlike numerous other studies that have investigated the accepting attitude only, the present one has investigated the actual COVID-19 vaccine uptake among the obstetric population.Copyright © The Author(s).
ABSTRACT
Objective: COVID-19 caused a deleterious impact on the health care system globally.The roll out of vaccines seems to be the only effective way to curtail the spread of disease.The purpose of this study is to assess the dermatological adverse effect of post COVID-19vaccination on a gender basis. Methodology: This was an observational,cross-sectional,questionnaire-based survey conducted in Pakistan.The sample comprises 518 participants. The questionnaire was self-designed. The trial lasted six months, from August 1, 2022, until January 31, 2023. We used a non-probability sampling technique.Dermatological adverse effects like burning pain, redness, rashes, and lymphadenopathy at the injection site were recorded.Fever was also noted. All the participants have received booster shots or double doses of any one of CCOVID-19 vaccines, such as AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sinovac, Sinopharm,Pakvac, etc. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Qualitative data was reported as frequency and percentage, and quantitativedata was reported as standard deviation and mean. Result(s): The study included 518 subjects, of whom 262 were males and 256 were females. The mean age of male is 42.70+/-14.05 years and female is 39.04+/-14.6years with a significant difference observed between them (p=0.004). The most common complaint among dermatological adverse effects after first was pain. 106(40.5%) male and 132(51.6%) female reported painwith a significant difference observed between them (p=0.011) followed by swelling which was reported by 92(35.1%) males and 120(46.9%) females with a significant difference observed between them (p=0.006).Burning was reported in 92(35.1%) male and 148(57.8%) female with a significant difference observed between them(p<0.001). Fever was also quite commonly reported in both male 116(44.3%) and female 178(69.5%) with significantdifference observed between them (p<0.001),Likewise post 2nd dose of vaccination, pain was most commonly noted in 90(34.4%) male and female 124(48.4%) female with significant difference observed between them (p=0.001). Moreover, burning was reported by 80(30.5%) malesand 132(51.6%) females with a significant difference observed between them (p<0.001). rashes were reported by76(29.0%) males and 100(39.1%) females with a significant difference observed between them (p=0.016), lymphadenopathy was also significantly associated with genders, (p<0.001). Conclusion(s): This study concluded that the burning pain,redness,rashes,and lymphadenopathywere the most prevalent side effects in male and female post 1st and 2ndCOVID-19 vaccination.Furthermore fever was also reported in majority of subjects.In addition to this higher percentage of side effects were recorded in females as comparedto males.Copyright © 2023 Lahore Medical And Dental College. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vaccines are one of the best interventions developed for eradicating COVID-19. In Albania, COVID-19 vaccination uses different types of vaccines: Pfizer, AstraZeneca, CoronaVac, and Sputnik V. Like any other vaccine, these have side effects too. AIM: This study was carried out to identify the perception of the side effects of vaccines. METHOD(S): A quantitative study using a cross-sectional survey was conducted between April and September 2021 to collect data on the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine among individuals in Shkodra region. Data were collected online through a self-administered survey created on Google Forms which had been randomly delivered to individuals (aged >=18 years) using social media sites (Email and WhatsApp). All data collected were analyzed with Microsoft Office Excel 2010, using the exact Fisher's test and x2 test. RESULT(S): This study included 292 citizens, out of which 200 were female and 92 were male;62% were from urban areas and 38% from rural areas of Shkodra region. The random sample of the citizens who took part in this study is 44.5% (18-30 years old). A massive percentage of the participants, 66.4%, had received the second dose of the vaccine. Our study shows that 55.8% of these citizens have had side effects after the first vaccination dose, and only 43.8% have had side effects after the second dose. About 80.6% of the participants were well informed about the type of vaccine they got. CONCLUSION(S): Side effects from vaccines were reported. Injection site pain and fatigue were the most common first dose side effects (55.8%). The same side effects were reported for the second dose. The side effects were presented during the first 12 h after the vaccination in most cases. Side effects were more prevalent in people >50 years old. Older people have a higher probability to have more side effects from the COVID vaccine. There is no statistically significant relationship between gender and the presence of the side effect from the COVID vaccine. People living in urban areas have a higher probability to have side effect from COVID vaccine comparing with people living in rural areas. People being vaccinated with Pfizer vaccine have a higher probability to admit the presence of side effects.Copyright: © 2022 Zamira Shabani, Arketa Guli, Julian Kraja, Arlinda Ramaj, Nertila Podgorica.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundSubcutaneous self-injection of methotrexate (SC MTX) is used for the treatment of several inflammatory diseases. All newly initiated patients should be educated and trained in the proper injection technique by their healthcare provider (HCP), with the first injection performed under medical supervision. This training has typically been conducted during face-to-face consultations, however since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic it has been necessary to conduct training remotely due to the cancellation of clinics.ObjectivesTo understand patient-reported experiences and satisfaction with remote SC MTX self-injection training.MethodsA cross-sectional electronic survey was administered between 11 October 2022 and 30 November 2022 to patients at Southern Health and Social Care Trust who had recently been trained via telephone or video conference [VC] on how to self-inject methotrexate using a pre-filled, auto-injector pen. Patients were aged ≥18 with a range of arthritis types, including rheumatoid, psoriatic, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic and chronic reactive inflammatory arthritis. Remote training was delivered by the patient's nurse as per routine practice (independently of this survey). Patients were sent a patient information pack (PIP) prior to the training consultation. During the training, the nurse discussed the process of injecting with the auto-injector pen before virtually supervising the first injection.The survey consisted of 14 questions;topics included experiences and satisfaction with preparation for the HCP appointment, the training consultation itself and post-training experiences and preferences. The responses were analysed descriptively on an item-by-item basis.ResultsIn total 73 patients completed the survey;77% (n=56/73) were female, and 96% (n=70/73) had no prior experience with a SC MTX auto-injector pen. The training was completed by telephone for 92% (n=67/73) of patients and by VC for 8% (n=6/73). 99% (n=72/73) received a PIP in advance of their training consultation and 92% (n=67/73) received this by post. 67% (n=49/73) of patients strongly agreed and 26% (n=19/73) agreed that they felt prepared for the training after receiving the PIP;78% (n=57/73) of patients strongly agreed and 22% (n=16/73) agreed that it was easy to read and understand, whilst 52% (n=38/73) strongly agreed and 32% (n=23/73) agreed that the PIP was helpful and did not require additional instructions before the appointment. 84% (n=61/73) took 15 minutes or less to complete the training with their HCP. None of the participants felt confused or did not understand the training instructions from their HCP, 78% (n=57/73) strongly agreed and 19% (n=14/73) agreed that the remote training was helpful and made them feel more confident to use the injector pen on their own and 97% (n=71/73) did not need to contact their HCP for more training or advice following their appointment. When asked about the main advantages of remote training, 32% (n=23/73) agreed it was more convenient, 25% (n=18/73) agreed that it was time saving and 30% (n=22/73) agreed that not having to attend the hospital was beneficial. 85% (n=62/73) strongly agreed and 14% (n=10/73) agreed that they were satisfied with the remote training provided and 82% (n=60/73) strongly agreed and 18% (n=13/73) agreed that they would recommend the remote training to another patient.ConclusionThese findings provide new insight into patients' experiences with self-injection training when delivered remotely by their HCP. The patient information pack and training consultation were well received as most patients found it helpful, convenient and time saving.References:NIL.AcknowledgementsThis survey was funded by Nordic Pharma. Medical writing support was provided by Angie Bonsu of Open Health and funded by Nordic Pharma.Disclosure of InterestsShannon McCourt Grant/research support from: Nordic Pharma, Mano Andiappan Employee of: Open Health who were paid by Nordic Pharma to support the work described in the .
ABSTRACT
Aims and objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the immediate adverse effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (COVAXIN) in a pregnant woman with that of a nonpregnant woman. Material(s) and Method(s): It is a prospective observational study done at Vanivilas Hospital, Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute (BMCRI) for 2 months. The sample size was 100 pregnant and 100 nonpregnant women. Telephonically, patients were followed-up, and details of the side/adverse effects were collected in a proforma after 2 and 14 days. Data collected from both groups were analyzed using the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Result(s): The majority of women were in the age group of <=25 years (64.0% and 36.0%, respectively) with a mean age of 25.01 +/- 3.71 years among the pregnant and 28.52 +/- 6.00 years among nonpregnant women. About 25.0% of pregnant women and 38.0% of nonpregnant women reported side effects. About 15.0% and 22.0% had taken treatment for side effects among pregnant women and nonpregnant women, respectively. Among the pregnant women, the common side effects reported were injection site pain (17) followed by fever (5), fatigue (4), and myalgia (03). Whereas among the nonpregnant women, the common side effects reported were injection site pain (28) followed by fever (6), myalgia (3), headache (2), and fatigue (1). Conclusion(s): Side effects reported following the administration of Covaxin in pregnant and nonpregnant women are fever, fatigue, injection site pain, myalgia, and headache. The proportion of side effects was not significantly different in the pregnant and nonpregnant women following Covaxin administration. Clinical significance: Covaxin is an inactivated killed vaccine against COVID-19 by Bharat Biotech. The vaccine has been recommended for pregnant women by the Government of India during corona pandemic. Studies are lacking regarding the difference in adverse events in pregnant versus nonpregnant women, after vaccine administration.Copyright © The Author(s).
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Interception therapy requires an individual to take a treatment today to prevent a future medical event. Patients must trade off treatment burdens incurred today against future benefits. We examined the preferences of high-risk lung cancer (LC) individuals for potential interception therapies that reduce the risk of developing lung cancer. Method(s): An online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was developed for hypothetical LC interception treatments with four attributes: reduction in risk of LC over 3 years, injection site reaction severity, nonfatal serious infection risk, and death from serious infection risk. Respondents chose between two alternative treatments or a no-treatment option. The DCE was analyzed using random-parameters logit, and maximum acceptable risk for an LC risk reduction was calculated. Logit analysis explored characteristics of respondents who always selected no treatment. Result(s): The sample included 803 adults aged 50-80 years with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history. Respondents had an average willingness to accept interception therapy (alternative-specific constant=1.30, 95% CI: 0.91-1.69). Respondents viewed larger reductions in the risk of LC as most important. Respondents were willing to accept increases in risk of nonfatal serious infection up to 15% for a 15% improvement in relative LC risk reduction and increases in risk of death from serious infection up to 1.5% for a 23% improvement in relative LC risk reduction. However, 16% of respondents selected 'no treatment' for all DCE questions. Older respondents, current smokers who have never tried to quit, and those who did not get regular skin exams for cancer and/or COVID-19 vaccine were more likely to opt out of interception therapy. Conclusion(s): Generally, individuals at high risk of LC are willing to consider interception therapy. Study results can support benefit-risk assessments for future systemic LC interception treatments, and the results may have implications for other therapeutic areas.Copyright © 2023
ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients with immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs) have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination to mitigate the infection severity risks. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at a high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, especially those under immunosuppression or with comorbidities associated. However, few studies in the literature assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the COVID-19 heterologous vaccine schedules in patients with RA.ObjectivesEvaluate the safety and immunogenicity of two heterologous vaccine schedules against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with RA.MethodsThese data are from the study "SAFER - Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Diseases,” a Brazilian multicentric prospective phase IV study to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine in IMRDs in Brazil. Immunogenicity and adverse events (AEs) in patients with RA of all centers were assessed after two doses of ChAdOx1 plus additional dose of BNT162b2 or after two doses of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine CoronaVac plus additional dose of BNT162b2. The titers of neutralizing antibodies against the receptor-biding domain of protein spike (S) of SARS-CoV-2 (anti-RBD) were measured by chemiluminescence test after each dose of immunizers. Proportions between groups were compared using the chi-square and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) before and after vaccination was assessed using the McNemar test.ResultsA total of 107 patients with RA were include in the study, most of them female, with a mean age of 46 years. Biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were used by 50 % of the patients and conventional synthetics DMARDs in 48 %. Two doses of CoronaVac plus additional dose of BNT162b2 was used in 66 patients and two doses of ChAdOx1 plus additional dose of BNT162b2 in 41. Only mild AEs were observed, mainly after the first dose. The most common AEs after all doses, regardless of the immunizer type, were pain at the injection, headache, arthralgia and myalgia. ChAdOx1 had a higher frequency of pain at the injection (66% vs 32 %, p < 0,001) and arthralgia (68% vs 15%, p < 0,001) compared to CoronaVac. No patients had flare after the vaccination. The titers of anti-RBD after two doses of ChAdOx1 were higher compared to two doses of CoronaVac (6,03 BAU/mL vs 4,67 BAU/mL, p < 0,001). However, after the additional dose of BNT162b2, the anti-RBD titers were similar in both groups (7.28 BAU/mL vs 7.06 BAU/mL, p = 0.56). Only two cases of COVID 19, with mild symptoms, were reported, one in each group.Figure 1.ConclusionChAdOx1, CoronaVac, and BNT162b2 vaccines are safe in RA patients. The frequency of local adverse effects, particularly pain at the injection site, is high. AEs are more frequent with ChAdOx1, especially after the first dose. The use of the immunizers does not change the degree of inflammatory activity of the disease. The immunogenicity of the two heterologous regimens analyzed was similar.References[1]Marques C, Kakehasi AM, Gomides APM, Paiva EDS, Dos Reis Neto ET, Pileggi GCS, et al. A Brazilian Cohort of Patients With Immuno-Mediated Chronic Inflammatory Diseases Infected by SARS-CoV-2 (ReumaCoV-Brasil Registry): Protocol for a Prospective, Observational Study. JMIR Res Protoc.[2]Medeiros-Ribeiro AC, Aikawa NE, Saad CGS, Yuki EFN, Pedrosa T, Fusco SRG, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the CoronaVac inactivated vaccine in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a phase 4 trial. Nat Med. 2021;27(10):1744-1751.[3]Machado PM, Lawson-Tovey S, Strangfeld A, Mateus EF, Hyrich KL, Gossec L, et al. Safety of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: results from the EULAR Coronavirus Vaccine (COVAX) physician-reported registry. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(5):695-709.[4]Tavares ACFMG, Melo AKG, Cruz VA, Souza VA, Carvalho JS, Machado KLLL, et al. Guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with immunemediated rheumatic diseases: a Brazilian Society of Rheumatology task force. Adv Rheumatol. 2022;62:3.Acknowledg ments:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic presented new and exacerbated existing challenges to the Australian healthcare workforce. Principally, health care demands have grown by approximately 14.9% over the past four years, Medicare costs from CT alone rose from $145 to 790 million per annum over the past 20 years and disrupted global supply lines during 2021 resulted in an 80% reduction of available CT iodinated contrast worldwide.1-3 Innovations to improve workflow efficiencies as well as lower operational costs and wastage of CT contrast media have become paramount. This study sought to compare the savings metrics between an existing single-use CT contrast delivery system and a newly introduced multi-dose syringeless contrast injector. Method(s): Workflow efficiency savings were calculated through the average time each staff member (n = 5) spent refilling each injector system after a completed injection. A retrospective analysis assessed theoretical monetary and contrast media savings and based on one month (February 2022) of injection protocol data. Total contrast administration, consumable use and clinical wastage were calculated and compared through each contrast delivery system technique. Discussion/Conclusion: The multi-dose injector comparatively recorded in an average monthly workflow efficiency saving of 38.26% (seven hours and 29 minutes). Monthly contrast usage decreased 29% (15.2 L) and operational expenses declined 51% ($11,574) through utilisation of the multi-use injector. These findings indicate, when compared to a single-use system, the multi-use injector is a highly efficient contrast delivery system with significant financial return on investment.
ABSTRACT
Current worldwide mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 by intramuscular injection using a needled syringe has greatly protected numerous people from COVID-19. An intramuscular injection is generally well tolerated, safer and easier to perform on a large scale, whereas the skin has the benefit of the presence of numerous immune cells, such as professional antigen-presenting dendritic cells. Therefore, intradermal injection is considered superior to intramuscular injection for the induction of protective immunity, but more proficiency is required for the injection. To improve these issues, several different types of more versatile jet injectors have been developed to deliver DNAs, proteins or drugs by high jet velocity through the skin without a needle. Among them, a new needle-free pyro-drive jet injector has a unique characteristic that utilizes gunpower as a mechanical driving force, in particular, bi-phasic pyrotechnics to provoke high jet velocity and consequently the wide dispersion of the injected DNA solution in the skin. A significant amount of evidence has revealed that it is highly effective as a vaccinating tool to induce potent protective cellular and humoral immunity against cancers and infectious diseases. This is presumably explained by the fact that shear stress generated by the high jet velocity facilitates the uptake of DNA in the cells and, consequently, its protein expression. The shear stress also possibly elicits danger signals which, together with the plasmid DNA, subsequently induces the activation of innate immunity including dendritic cell maturation, leading to the establishment of adaptive immunity. This review summarizes the recent advances in needle-free jet injectors to augment the cellular and humoral immunity by intradermal injection and the possible mechanism of action.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Injections, Intradermal , Injections, Jet , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Injections, IntramuscularABSTRACT
Introduction Vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) helps develop protective immunity against COVID-19 without experiencing potentially severe illness. Many vaccines are used worldwide, but there is little data on the efficacy and side effects of the Sinopharm vaccine. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the reported adverse effects of the Sinopharm vaccine among participants. Methods This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in multiple hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. The study was eight months, from April 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022. A total of 600 participants who gave informed consent and had received their first and second doses of the Sinopharm vaccine were included in the study. As hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) are common prevalent conditions in our population, the duration of DM and hypertension were documented as means and standard deviations apart from age, height, and weight. Side effects of the Sinopharm vaccine were reported as frequencies and percentages. Results The study findings showed that out of 600 participants, 376 (62.7%) were males and 224 (37.3%) were females; their mean age was 42.79±14.44 years. Among them, 130 (21.7%) had hypertension, and 138 (23.0%) had DM. All participants received the Sinopharm vaccine. Fever was the most frequently reported adverse effect following the first dose of the Sinopharm vaccine in 308 (51.3% of participants), followed by burning at the injection site in 244 (40.7% of participants) and pain at the injection site in 228 (38.0% of participants). Following the second dose of the Sinopharm vaccine, fever was the most frequently reported side effect in 254 (42.3%) participants, followed by pain at the injection site in 236 (39.5%) participants and burning at the site of injection in 210 (35.0%) participants. Moreover, joint pain in 194 (32.3%), shortness of breath in 170 (28.3%), swelling of glands in 168 (28.0%), chest pain in 164 (27.3%), and muscle pain were reported by 140 (23.3%) participants. The level of satisfaction showed that the majority of the participants, 334 (55.7%), were satisfied, 132 (22.0%) were very satisfied with their vaccination, and only 12 (2.0%) were dissatisfied. Conclusion This study concluded that fever was the most frequent side effect after both doses of the Sinopharm vaccine. Pain and burning at the injection site and joint pain were among the other common side effects reported by most participants. The Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine had mild, predictable, and non-life-threatening side effects after the first and second doses.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of the measures taken during the lockdown period from March 17 to May 11, 2020 on the management of patients with exudative age related macular degeneration treated by intravitreal anti-VEGF injections at the University Hospital of Tours. METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients were included after analysis of the computerized medical records of patients with age related macular degeneration. Those who were treated for exudative age related macular degeneration who received at least 1 intravitreal injection in the 12 months prior and at least one consultation in the 6 months prior to the lockdown period, were included. The initial and final mean visual acuity were compared with a 5 letter non-inferiority margin. A subgroup analysis was performed according to outcomes. The visual acuities immediately after this period were also recorded. RESULTS: In all, 595 eyes of 493 patients were included. The mean initial visual acuity was 59.6 letters, vs. 58.5 for the final visual acuity, i.e. a difference of -1.13 letters with a lower limit of the confidence interval of less than 5. The visual acuity on release from lockdown was comparable to the other 2 measurements. Initial visual acuity and the number of missed treatments were the main factors associated with functional loss. CONCLUSION: Patients' visual acuity during the lockdown period was able to be maintained despite the restrictive measures and limitation of care access in France. The most common cause of substantial visual decline was missed intravitreal injections.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Macular Degeneration , Wet Macular Degeneration , Humans , Infant , Angiogenesis Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Ranibizumab , Follow-Up Studies , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control , Macular Degeneration/drug therapy , Macular Degeneration/epidemiology , Intravitreal Injections , Treatment Outcome , Wet Macular Degeneration/drug therapy , Wet Macular Degeneration/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Local glucocorticoid injections are used in the treatment of isolated sacroiliitis in patients with spondyloarthritis. Sacroiliac joint injections can be performed intraarticularly or periarticularly. Since the accuracy of blind injections is low, fluoroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, or ultrasonography guidance are used to increase the accuracy of sacroiliac joint injections. Currently, imaging fusion software is successfully used in sacroiliac joint interventions with three-dimensional anatomic information added to ultrasonography. Herein, we present two cases of sacroiliac joint corticosteroid injections under ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guidance.
ABSTRACT
Orthopedic surgeons commonly perform corticosteroid injections. These injections have systemic side effects, including suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal axis. Due to this suppression, there is a theoretical risk of corticosteroid injections affecting the efficacy of the novel COVID-19 vaccines. This potential interaction led the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons to recommend, "avoiding musculoskeletal corticosteroid injections for two weeks before and one week after COVID vaccine administration." This review examines the literature underlying this recommendation. An extensive literature review was performed through PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar from database inception to May 2022. Keywords searched were COVID, coronavirus, vaccine, vaccination, steroids, and corticosteroids. Search results included articles written in the English language and encompassed reviews, case series, empirical studies, and basic science articles. There is no definitive evidence that corticosteroid injections affect COVID-19 vaccine efficacy or increase the risk of contracting COVID. The authors recommend orthopedic surgeons follow the AAOS guidelines, which recommend avoiding injections two weeks before and one week following COVID vaccine administration. Additional research is needed to better define this theoretical risk, especially since there is good evidence that injections suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of adverse effects (AE) of vaccination against COVID-19 in patients with SLE who visit medical centers in Asuncion, Paraguay. Method(s): The study performed was observational, transverse, descriptive. 152 patients with SLE were included, who received at least one dose of anti-COVID vaccine. A survey was carried out, which allowed the data collection through phone calls or instant messaging. Each investigator had a spreadsheet that related the generated code with the surveyed patient's name. Once the call ended and if the patient agreed to participate in the study, a code was generated. Result(s): 88.5% of the individuals were female, the average age was 33.93 +/- 11,102 years. Of these, 94.3% received their first dose, 86.3% the second dose, 39.7% the third dose, and 2.3% the fourth dose. Of the total vaccinated patients, 39.38% were administered Sputnik-V, 26.02% Pfizer, 16.43% AstraZeneca, 13.35% Moderna, 4.1% Covaxin, and 0.68% Hayat Vax. Of 292 doses administered, 103 AEs were recorded, 79.6% within the first 5 days and the rest within the next 5 days. 44.03% presented the AE after the first dose, 32.11% after the second dose and 23.85% after the third dose. Themean duration of symptoms was 7.49 +/- 9.877 days. The most important side effect was pain at the injection site, followed by fever and fatigue. The worsening of Lupus due to the administration of the anticovid vaccine was demonstrated in 9.93% of the cases. Conclusion(s): Mild effects were registered. It is concluded that vaccination against COVID-19 is safe for individuals with SLE.
ABSTRACT
The United Downs geothermal power project has been developed by Geothermal Engineering Ltd (GEL) and is the first geothermal electricity project in the UK. The site was selected in 2010 for its geology (strongly faulted, radiogenic granite), surface infrastructure, grid connection and potential community acceptance. The deep drilling programme started in 2018, with the production well drilled to 5,275 m MD and deviating from 3,390 m to a final inclination of 33.5º, representing the deepest onshore well in the UK. The injection well was then drilled to 2,393m MD, deviating from 1,020 m to a final inclination of 40º. The drilling of a deep production well and shallow injection well into a natural fault zone is a concept developed by GEL, based on some of the results from the research at the Hot Dry Rocks project in Rosemanowes, Cornwall. The production well has successfully encountered significant permeability horizons within the target fault zone, temperatures of 180ºC and world-class lithium concentrations. It is expected to provide between 2 and 3 MWe to the National Grid and carbon neutral heat to a proposed 6 km heat main and the project has been associated with many universities and pan European research projects. Despite the delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the United Downs project has seen a number of exciting milestones since EGC 2019, including completion of drilling, extensive well testing/stimulation and signing of the first Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for deep geothermal electricity in the UK with Ecotricity. The team also secured grant funding for a demonstration plant that will trial Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) from the deep geothermal fluid. This paper presents an overview of the initial results of drilling and testing, briefly highlighting the success of hydraulic stimulation and management of induced seismicity during development. It also provides a forward look to the final stages of the United Downs development and the future of geothermal power projects across Cornwall. © 2022 Geothermal Resources Council. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: In the Chronic Inflammatory Immune-mediated Diseases (CIMD), infections mainly occur in the respiratory tract and their occurrence is related to drug-induced immunosuppression, underlying diseases and comorbidities. To reduce this morbidity and mortality, vaccination is an effective means of prevention. However, the available studies on SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have not addressed this group of patients with CIMD, and there are still many doubts regarding the indications, adverse effects, safety and efficacy of these vaccines. Objective(s): to evaluate the adverse effects of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in adolescent patients with CIMD. Method(s): Research associated to the SAFER Project from Brazilian Society of Rheumatology. It is an observational, longitudinal, ambidirectional study, with follow-up of groups of vaccinated adolescent patients with CIMD, vaccine by Pfizer/BioNTech. Sociodemographic data were collected, stored on an online platform, and adverse events were presented by filling in diaries issued for each patient. This study was approved by the local Research Ethics Committee. Result(s): We included 19 adolescents, aged between 12 to 17 years, who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean age was 14.63 +/- 2.01 years. Of these, 68.4% were female. In relation to CIMD, 31.6% have Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and 68.4% have Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. All were vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine. In the 1st dose, the main adverse effects presented were Pain at the injection site (85.7%), Headache (42.9%), Tiredness (33.3%) and Edema and skin induration at the injection site (26, 7%). After the 2nd dose, the only adverse effect reported was Pain at the injection site (57.1%), with no other complaints. Conclusion(s): The adverse effects reported are of mild tomoderate reactogenicity;no serious adverse events were reported.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). Method(s): These data are from the 'SAFER (Safety and Efficacy on COVID-19 Vaccine in Rheumatic Diseases)' study, a Brazilian multicentric longitudinal phase IV study to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine in immunomediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs). Adverse events (AEs) in patients with RA were assessed after two doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac. Stratification of postvaccination AEs was performed using a diary, filled out daily. The titers of neutralizing antibodies against the receptor-biding domain of SARS-CoV-2 (anti-RBD) were measured by chemilumine scence test after each dose of immunizers. Proportions between groups were compared using the Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) before and after vaccination was assessed using the McNemar test. Result(s): A total of 188 patients with RA were included in the study, most of them were female. CoronaVac was used in 109 patients and ChAdOx1 in 79. Only mild AEs were observed. The more common AEs after the first dose were pain at injection site (46,7%), headache (39,4%), arthralgia (39,4%) and myalgia (30,5%), and ChAdOx1 had a higher frequency of pain at the injection site (66% vs 32 %, p alpha 0.001) arthralgia (62% vs 22%, p alpha 0.001) and myalgia (45% vs 20%, p alpha 0.001) compared to CoronaVac. The more common AEs after the second dose were pain at the injection site (37%), arthralgia (31%), myalgia (23%) and headache (21%). Arthralgia (41,42 % vs 25 %, p = 0.02) and pain at injection site (51,43% vs 27%, p = 0.001) were more common with ChAdOx1. No patients had a flare after vaccination. The titers of anti-RBDafter two doses of ChAdOx1 were higher compared to two doses of CoronaVac (6,03 BAU/mL vs 4,67 BAU/mL, p alpha 0,001). Conclusion(s): The frequency of local adverse effects, particularly pain at injection site, was high. AEs were more frequent with ChAdOx1, especially after the first dose. The use of the immunizers dis not change the degree of inflammatory activity of the disease. In patients with RA, ChAdOx1 was more immunogenic than CoronaVac. .
ABSTRACT
Air movement dynamics within three student dormitories were studied with simulated carbon dioxide (CO2) pulse injections to understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk. CO2 decay rate, proportion of shared air, and transport time were calculated from dynamic CO2 measurement data within simulated source and adjacent receptor rooms. Applying a Wells-Riley infection risk analysis with these results, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adjacent rooms ranged from 1% to 58% assuming an average emission rate of 5 quanta per hour and exposure duration of 3.5 days. Door opening status was very influential in resulting risk and vertical transport from source to above rooms was observed in all dormitories. © 2022 17th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, INDOOR AIR 2022. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
History: Transient and generalized adverse effects are common following COVID-19 vaccination;among other adverse effects, shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) have been known to occur. In this case, a previously healthy right-hand dominant 62-year-old male presented with left shoulder pain and weakness 3 months after receiving a COVID-19 intramuscular vaccine in the left deltoid. Approximately 2 weeks after the injection, he started experiencing pain and numbness around the injection site along with ipsilateral shoulder weakness. Despite conservative management with Motrin, Medrol Dosepak, gabapentin and physical therapy (PT), the pain and weakness persisted. Physical Exam: Left Shoulder-No calor or erythema;significant atrophy of the anterior and middle deltoid muscle relative to right side;abduction 4/5;external rotation with shoulder adducted 4/5;range of motion for active forward flexion was 150 degrees and passive was 170 degrees;passive range of motion for external rotation was 70 degrees;internal rotation to the level of L5;sensation to light touch was intact. Right Shoulder-Range of motion, strength, and sensation were intact. Cervical Spine-Full ROM;no cervical paraspinal tenderness noted. Negative Spurling's and Lhermitte's tests. Differential Diagnosis: 161. Axillary Nerve Palsy 2/2 Chemical Neurotoxicity 162. Brachial Neuritis 163. Mechanical Axillary Nerve Palsy 2/2 Vaccination 164. Partial-Tear of Left Supraspinatus Tendon 165. Acromioclavicular Osteoarthritis Test Results: Left Shoulder-XR:Mild pseudo-subluxation;MRI w/o contrast: 8x9mmpartial-thickness articular surface tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon (<50%fiber thickness). Minimal subacromial bursitis. Mild acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis. EMG/NCV: Left and Right Axillary Motor Nerves: prolonged distal onset latency;Left Deltoid: increased insertion activity, moderately increased spontaneous activity, reduced recruitment;Remaining LUE muscles without evidence of electrical instability Final Diagnosis: Axillary Nerve Palsy Secondary To Chemical Neurotoxicity from Intramuscular COVID-19 Vaccine. Discussion(s): We postulate that the neurologic deficits presented in our case may be attributed to chemical neurotoxicity to the axillary nerve following vaccination as the delayed onset of pain and weakness are most consistent with this differential. There are several cases of brachial neuritis following vaccination for the prevention of COVID- 19, however, EMG/NCV results in our patient were not consistent with brachial plexopathy. Additionally, while there have been a handful of reported cases of bursitis following COVID-19 vaccines falling under the SIRVA classification of injuries, this is the first case of reported axillary nerve neurapraxia. Outcome(s): The patient's left shoulder numbness and pain improved with PT and medical management. While mild improvement in strength was noted, weakness and atrophy persisted even on the third follow up visit 6 months after the initial appointment. He was counseled on his injury and was recommended to undergo repeat EMG testing to document recovery after his 6-month follow-up appointment. Follow-Up: The patient did not follow-up for a repeatEMG after his 6-month follow-up appointment. At that time, the patient was clinically stable, tolerating PT, and expecting recovery of his deltoid function.