Catastrophic Costs among Tuberculosis-Affected Households in Egypt: Magnitude, Cost Drivers, and Coping Strategies.

Despite national programs covering the cost of treatment for tuberculosis (TB) in many countries, TB patients still face substantial costs. The end TB strategy, set by the World Health Organization (WHO), calls for "zero" TB households to be affected by catastrophic payments by 2025. This study aimed to measure the catastrophic healthcare payments among TB patients in Egypt, to determine its cost drivers and determinants and to describe the coping strategies. The study utilized an Arabic-validated version of the TB cost tool developed by the WHO for estimating catastrophic healthcare expenditure using the cluster-based sample survey with stratification in seven administrative regions in Alexandria. TB payments were considered catastrophic if the total cost exceeded 20% of the household's annual income. A total of 276 patients were interviewed: 76.4% were males, 50.0% were in the age group 18-35, and 8.3% had multidrug-resistant TB. Using the human capital approach, 17.0% of households encountered catastrophic costs compared to 59.1% when using the output approach. The cost calculation was carried out using the Egyptian pound converted to the United States dollars based on 2021 currency values. Total TB cost was United States dollars (USD) 280.28 ± 29.9 with a total direct cost of USD 103 ± 10.9 and a total indirect cost of USD 194.15 ± 25.5. The direct medical cost was the main cost driver in the pre-diagnosis period (USD 150.23 ± 26.89 pre diagnosis compared to USD 77.25 ± 9.91 post diagnosis, p = 0.013). The indirect costs (costs due to lost productivity) were the main cost driver in the post-diagnosis period (USD 4.68 ± 1.18 pre diagnosis compared to USD 192.84 ± 25.32 post diagnosis, p < 0.001). The households drew on multiple financial strategies to cope with TB costs where 66.7% borrowed and 25.4% sold household property. About two-thirds lost their jobs and another two-thirds lowered their food intake. Being female, delay in diagnosis and being in the intensive phase were significant predictors of catastrophic payment. Catastrophic costs were high among TB households in Alexandria and showed wide variation according to the method used for indirect cost estimation. The main cost driver before diagnosis was the direct medical costs, while it was the indirect costs, post diagnosis.

Natural Immunomodulators Treat the Cytokine Storm in SARS-CoV-2.

Recently, the world has been dealing with a destructive global pandemic Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, since 2020; there were millions of infections and hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide. With sequencing generations of the virus, around 60% are expected to become infected during the pandemic. Unfortunately, no drug or vaccine has been approved because no real evidence from clinical trials in treatment was reached. According to current thinking, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mortality is caused by a cytokine storm syndrome in patients with hyper-inflammatory conditions, resulting in acute respiratory distress and finally death. In this review, we discuss the various types of natural immune-modulatory agents and their role in the management of SARS-CoV-2, and cytokine storm syndrome. For example, Polyphenols as natural products can block the binding of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to host cell receptor ACE2, stop viral entry into the host cell and block viral RNA replication. Also, saikosaponins (A, B2, C, and D), triterpene glycosides, which are isolated from medicinal plants exert antiviral action against HCoV-22E9, and Houttuynia cordata water extract has antiviral effects on SARS-CoV. Moreover, eucalyptus oil has promising potential for COVID-19 prevention and treatment. There is an urgent need for research to improve the function of the human immune system all over the world. As a result, actions for better understanding and improving the human immune system are critical steps toward mitigating risks and negative outcomes. These approaches will be strongly recommended for future emerging viruses and pathogens.

Exploring enablers and barriers toward COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among Arabs: A qualitative study.

Background: With the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and rapid vaccine development, research interest in vaccine hesitancy (VH) has increased. Research usually focuses on quantitative estimates which largely neglected the qualitative underpinnings of this phenomenon. This study aimed to explore the beliefs and views towards COVID-19 vaccination among Arabs in different countries. Furthermore, we explored the effect of confidence in the healthcare system, misinformation, and scientific approaches adopted to mitigate COVID-19 on how individuals are following the recommended preventative actions including vaccination. Methods: This study was based on the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE)-VH Model: A qualitative design that utilized in-depth, online interviews. The study was conducted in seven Arab countries (Egypt, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Jordan) from June 2020 to December 2021. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 12 Software. Results: A total of 100 participants, 44 males and 56 females, of different age groups (37.1 ± 11.56 years) were interviewed. Findings revealed six themes as enablers and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Many participants indicated trusting the vaccines, the healthcare systems, and the vaccination policies were the main driver to get the vaccine. Participants showed concerns towards potential long-term vaccine effects. A consistent inclination towards collective responsibility, which is the willingness to protect others by own vaccination, was also reported. Conclusion: Enablers and barriers of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in the Arab region, from sociocultural and political perspectives, are critical to guide policymakers in designing target-oriented interventions that can improve vaccine acceptance.

A Meta-Analysis on the Safety and Immunogenicity of Covid-19 Vaccines.

OBJECTIVE: The presented meta-analysis (MA) aims at identifying the vaccine safety and immunogenicity in published trials about SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. METHODS: All relevant publications were systematically searched and collected from different databases (Embase, Scopus, EBSCO, MEDLINE central/PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register for Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), Clinical Trials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), COVID Trial, COVID Inato, Web of Science, ProQuest Thesis, ProQuest Coronavirus Database, SAGE Thesis, Google Scholar, Research Square, and Medxriv) up to January 10, 2021. The pooled vaccine safety and immunogenicity following vaccination in phase 1 and 2 vaccine clinical trials, as well as their 95% confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using the random-effects model. RESULTS: The predefined inclusion criteria were met in 22 out of 8592 articles. The proportion of anti-severe acute respiratory distress coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody responses after 7 days among 72 vaccinated persons included in 1 study was 81% (95% CI: 70-89), after 14 days among 888 vaccinated persons included in 6 studies was 80% (95% CI: 58-92), after 28 days among 1589 vaccinated persons included in 6 studies was 63% (95% CI: 59-67), after 42 days among 478 vaccinated persons included in 5 studies was 93% (95% CI: 80-98), and after 56 days among 432 vaccinated persons included in 2 studies was 93% (95% CI: 83-97). Meta regression explains more than 80% of this heterogeneity, where the main predictors were; the inactivated vaccine type (ß = 2.027, P = 0.0007), measurement of antibodies at week 1 (ß = -4.327, P < 0.0001) and at week 3 of the first dose (ß = -2.02, P = 0.0025). Furthermore, the pooled proportion adverse effects 7 days after vaccination was 0.01 (0.08-0.14) for fever, headache 0.23 (0.19-0.27), fatigue 0.10 (0.07-0.13), and 0.18 (0.14-0.23) for muscle pain. CONCLUSION: Immunogenicity following vaccination ranged from 63% to 93% depending on the time at which the antibody levels were measured.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has threatened global health and prompted the need for mass vaccination. We aimed to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent mortality and reduce the risk of developing severe disease after the 1st and 2nd doses. From conception to 28 June 2021, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, WHO-ICTRP, and Google Scholar. We included both observational and randomized controlled trials. The pooled vaccine efficacy and effectiveness following vaccination, as well as their 95 percent confidence intervals (CI), were estimated using the random-effects model. In total, 22 of the 21,567 screened articles were eligible for quantitative analysis. Mortality 7 and 14 days after full vaccination decreased significantly among the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group (OR = 0.10, ([95% CI, 0.04-0.27], I2 = 54%) and (OR = 0.46, [95% CI, 0.35-0.61], I2 = 0%), respectively. The probability of having severe disease one or two weeks after 2nd dose decreased significantly (OR = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.19-0.46], I2 = 25%) and (OR = 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.25], I2 = 74%), respectively. The incidence of infection any time after the 1st and 2nd doses diminished significantly (OR = 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07-0.4], I2 = 100%) and (OR = 0.179 [95% CI, 0.15-0.19], I2 = 98%), respectively. Also, incidence of infection one week after 2nd dose decreased significantly, (OR = 0.04, [95% CI (0.01-0.2], I2 = 100%). After meta-regression, the type of vaccine and country were the main predictors of outcome [non-mRNA type, ß = 2.99, p = 0.0001; country UK, ß = -0.75, p = 0.038; country USA, ß = 0.8, p = 0.02]. This study showed that most vaccines have comparable effectiveness, and it is purported that mass vaccination may help to end this pandemic.