A Battle against COVID-19: Vaccine Hesitancy and Awareness with a Comparative Study between Sinopharm and AstraZeneca

Background: Awareness about the COVID-19 vaccine’s adverse effects is crucial for gaining public trust. As we still lack proof of vaccines’ safety, this survey aimed to investigate Egyptians’ general awareness of the Sinopharm and AstraZeneca vaccines against COVID-19 and provide considerable evidence on their side effects and complications. Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted in Egypt between 20 September and 10 October in 2021, with multiple-choice questions (MCQs) covering all data on vaccine administration confusion, adverse effects or intensity, and complications. Results: Among the 390 participants, 42.3% reported being hesitant before receiving one of the vaccines. About 40.3% of participants were previously infected before getting vaccinated while only 4.6% reported being infected after vaccination. The AstraZeneca vaccine demonstrated higher side effects and symptoms than the Sinopharm vaccine while the Sinopharm vaccine showed a significantly higher rate of COVID-19 infection after vaccination. Conclusions: People with higher educational levels and chronic respiratory diseases represent an excellent model for accepting COVID-19 vaccination. A booster shot is recommended for people vaccinated with the Sinopharm vaccine due to a significantly higher rate of COVID-19 infection after vaccination; however, the Sinopharm vaccine shows a more acceptable safety profile

Knowledge, Attitude, and Acceptance of Sinopharm and AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 Vaccines among Egyptian Population: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the Egyptian population’s preference and awareness related to available COVID-19 vaccines and to determine different factors that can affect beliefs concerning these vaccines. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based study was carried out among the general population in Egypt. Data collection was conducted via an online questionnaire. Results: About 426 subjects participated in the survey. Vaccine preference is nearly equally even (50%) among all respondents. There was no significant difference in vaccine preference according to age, gender, residence, educational level, or social status. About 50% of public respondents mentioned that both AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccines do not offer protection against new variant COVID-19 strains. Healthcare workers are the lowest respondents to agree that vaccines offer protection against new COVID-19 variants (10.9%) compared to unemployed respondents (20.3%) and other professions (68.8%) with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.005). Safety of vaccine administration among children below 18 showed statistical differences for gender and educational level predictors. Conclusions: Most of the study population has satisfying knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine. Continuous awareness campaigns must be carried out so that the people’s background is updated with any new information that would help in raising the trust in vaccination

Effect of Pirfenidone on Risk of Pulmonary Fibrosis in COVID-19 Patients Experiencing Cytokine Storm

Objectives: Severe stages of COVID-19 infection have been associated with the excessive discharge of pro-inflammatory mediators such as cytokines, resulting in lung deterioration, which progresses rapidly to lung fibrosis leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome. In this investigation, the efficacy and safety of the novel antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory agent, Pirfenidone, were assessed in COVID-19 patients with pulmonary fibrosis secondary to cytokine storm. In this randomized controlled study, we assigned 100 adult COVID-19 patients cytokine storm and admitted to the intensive care isolation unit into either pirfenidone added to the standard therapy (n = 47), or the standard protocol only (n = 53). High-resolution computed tomography of the chest was performed in all patients to evaluate fibrotic lesions and their progression. The results showed that the percentage of patients who developed pulmonary fibrosis during cytokine storm onset in the pirfenidone group relative to the standard group was 29.8% and 35.8%, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups; while there was a significant increase in the proportion of patients discharged from the isolation unit with pulmonary fibrosis without progression in fibrotic lesions in the pirfenidone group compared to the standard group (21.3% and 5.7%, respectively). Furthermore, there was a significant difference concerning liver enzyme elevation and GIT disturbance incidences in the studied groups (p = 0.006 and 0.01, respectively). Our findings show that Pirfenidone inhibits fibrosis advancement in COVID-19 patients with pulmonary fibrosis and is associated with hepatotoxicity and GI distress. It may be beneficial in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19-induced pulmonary fibrosis; however, additional research is necessary

The Impact of Sociodemographic, Nutritional, and Health Factors on the Incidence and Complications of COVID-19 in Egypt: A Cross-Sectional Study

This study was intended to explore sociodemographic, nutritional, and health-related factors on the incidence of COVID-19 infection within the Egyptian population by assessing the frequency and determinants of post-COVID-19 symptoms and complications. A cross-sectional study using a structured survey on 15,166 participants was adopted. The results revealed common symptoms including fever (79.1%), cough (74.5%), anosmia& ageusia (68.4%), and dyspnea (66.9%). The patients were nonsmokers (83.9%), while 9.7% were mild smokers. The percentage of infected patients with comorbidities versus those without comorbidities were 29%, 71%, respectively. The highest incidence of infection was in those patients with hypertension (14.8%) and diabetes (10.9%), especially females with age >50 years and obesity (BMI; 30–39.9). The highest risks were observed for anticoagulants in the age above 50 years, morbid obesity, presence of comorbidities, and being a healthcare worker. The predictors of clot risk were in the age above 50 years, non-educated, and eating meat and eggs. Nonetheless, the highest risk of using antidepressants was in patients >50 years and those who traveled abroad. These findings and similarities within the surrounding region, the Middle East, North Africa, and South Europe, indicate the possibility of sharing the same viral strain and characteristics that may predict a similar vaccine efficacy and response

Efficacy of Metformin as Adjuvant Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer Treatment

Background: Metformin has been reported to have an anti-tumorigenic impact against metastatic breast cancer (MBC) cells through several mechanisms. Its effect can be evaluated by using many variables such as the response rate (RR) as well as the progression-free survival (PFS). Materials and methods: A prospective study was conducted to investigate and estimate the metformin effect on MBC. About 107 subjects were included in the study and were divided into two groups: Group A included non-diabetic MBC patients treated with metformin in conjunction with chemotherapy and group B included those treated with chemotherapy alone. Both PFS and RR were used as a criteria to evaluate the treatment outcome. Associated adverse effects of metformin were also assessed. Results: The average age of the participants in group A and group B was 50 vs. 47.5, respectively. No significant differences were detected between both cohorts concerning RR levels (regression disease (RD) 27.8% vs. 12.5%, stationary disease (SD) 44.4% vs. 41.7%, progression disease (PD) 27.8% vs. 45.8%, respectively, p = 0.074). Moreover, PFS showed no significant difference between both groups (p = 0.753). There was no significant correlation between metformin concentration and their adverse effects on the study participants. Conclusion: Metformin as an adjuvant therapy to MBC undergoing chemotherapy showed no significant survival benefit as determined by RR and PFS

Pentoxifylline Effects on Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with Cytokine Storm Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial

COVID-19 is a fatal, fast-spreading pandemic, and numerous attempts are being made around the world to understand and manage the disease. COVID-19 patients may develop a cytokine-release syndrome, which causes serious respiratory diseases and, in many cases, death. The study examined the feasibility of employing legally available anti-inflammatory pentoxifylline (PTX), a low toxicity and cost medication, to mitigate the hyper-inflammation caused by COVID-19. Thirty adult patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV2 were hospitalized owing to the cytokine storm syndrome. They were given 400 mg of pentoxifylline orally TID according to the standard COVID-19 protocol of the Egyptian Ministry of Health. Besides this, a group of thirty-eight hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received the standard COVID-19 protocol was included in the study as a control group. The outcomes included laboratory test parameters, clinical improvements, and number of deaths in both groups. After receiving PTX, all patients showed a significant improvement in C reactive protein (CRP), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels at p p = 0.004, respectively, while there was an increase in total leukocyte count (TLC) and neutrophil-to-leucocyte ratio (NLR) at p p < 0.01, while showing no statistically significant difference in the control group. The median initial ALT (42 U/L) in the treatment group showed a decrease compared to the control group (51 U/L). No statistical significance was reported regarding clinical improvement, length of stay, and death percentages between the two groups. Our results showed no significant improvement of PTX over controls in clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, PTX displayed a positive effect on certain inflammatory biomarkers

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population