Search

Purpose: The current pandemic made scientists create new platforms of vaccines to fight against SARS-CoV-2. Without a doubt, the new forms of present vaccines could develop a diversity of unknown complications. Sputnik V vaccine with two different adenovirus vectors (Ad26 priming and Ad5 boost) was first announced safe and effective by Russia. However, there are controversies surrounding this vaccine such as the possible decline of its immunogenicity and diminished neutralizing capacity against some Covid-19 variants. In addition, its impression on serum biomarkers is not clearly surveyed. The present study aimed to evaluate the frequency of Sputnik V vaccine-related complications and its impression on inflammatory and hematologic biomarkers., Materials &methods: An observational cohort study was performed to evaluate the side effects and serum biomarkers changes in healthcare workers receiving Sputnik V vaccine. The vaccine adverse events were recorded daily within 60 days. The blood samples were obtained before vaccination, and on the10th day after each dose of vaccination. The prevalence of all complications and inflammatory biomarkers levels were compared between two doses. All analyses were performed using SPSS software version 22.0., Results: Totally, 126 participants completed the study. The mean age was 37.19 ​± ​7.73 years. The prevalence of all complications was higher following the first dose than the second dose. The most common side effects were pain at the injection site, body pain, fever, headache, weakness, vertigo, sore throat and sleep disorder. The hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume of red blood cells and neutrophils count declined following vaccination significantly (P-value; 0.04, 0.039, 0.000 respectively)., Conclusion: It seems the side effects of Sputnik-V vaccine are mild and decrease significantly after the second dose. The decreasing level of hematocrit, MCV and neutrophil count was found significant following vaccination., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript, and report no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Indian Association of Medical Microbiologists. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Blood sugar (BS) has been proposed as a prognostic factor for COVID-19. In this historical cohort study we evaluated the association between admission time BS and COVID-19 outcome., Methods: First, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were divided into three groups; Non-diabetic patients with BS < 140 mg/dl (N = 394), non-diabetic patients with BS ≥ 140 mg/dl (N = 113) and diabetic patients (N = 315). Mortality, ICU admission, and length of hospital stay were compared between groups and odds ratio was adjusted using logistic regression., Results: After adjustment with pre-existing conditions and drugs, it was shown that non-diabetic patients with BS ≥ 140 mg/dl are at increased risk of mortality (aOR 1.89 (0.99-3.57)) and ICU admission (aOR 2.62 (1.49-4.59)) even more than diabetic patients (aOR 1.72 (1.07-2.78) for mortality and aOR 2.28 (1.47-3.54) for ICU admission., Conclusions: Admission time hyperglycemia predicts worse outcome of COVID-19 and BS ≥ 140 mg/dl is associated with a markedly increase in ICU admission and mortality., (Copyright © 2022 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The introduction of a self-collection sampling method with less discomfort would be of great benefit in reducing the risk of medical provider's contamination and patient's acceptance. The aim of the present study was to investigate saliva samples' diagnostic performance for the COVID-19 RT-PCR test compared to pharyngeal swabs., Methodology: From individuals referred to a medical center with presentations compatible with COVID-19 who were eligible for molecular diagnostic tests, 80 cases were selected. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs (placed into the same transport tube) along with self-collected saliva sample were taken from each participant for COVID-19 RT-PCR assay. The results of pharyngeal swabs and saliva sample were compared., Results: Sixty-two (78%) infected cases were detected, of whom 31 (39%) cases tested positive for both pharyngeal swab and saliva samples. 24 (30%) and 7 (9%) cases tested positive only for pharyngeal or saliva samples, respectively. The overall percentage of agreement between pharyngeal swab and saliva sample was 61%, with a kappa value of 0.24 (p-value = 0.019, 95% CI: 0.04-0.44), showing a fair level of agreement. The diagnostic sensitivity of pharyngeal swabs was 88.71% (95% CI: 78.11-95.34), and the diagnostic sensitivity of saliva samples was 61.29% (95% CI: 48.07-73.40). Compared to pharyngeal swabs (oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs in the same collection tube), an important observation was that seven more positive cases were detected among saliva samples., Conclusions: The findings of the present study indicated that self-collected saliva samples cannot replace pharyngeal swabs. Still, saliva samples significantly increased the case detection rate and can be used along with pharyngeal swabs., Competing Interests: No Conflict of Interest is declared, (Copyright (c) 2022 Alireza Abdollahi, Samaneh Salarvand, Reza Ghalehtaki, Bita Jafarzadeh, Mohammad Taghi Beigmohammadi, Fereshteh Ghiasvand, Abbas Shakoori, Hoda Khoshnevis, Mohammad Arabzadeh, Saeed Nateghi, Vahid Mehrtash.)

BACKGROUND: The new coronavirus causes systemic inflammation and damage to various organs. So, this study aimed to follow up patients with COVID −19 after recovery for three months by performing cardiac, pulmonary and laboratory tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients who were discharged from Baharloo Hospital. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by PCR or long CT scan. Inclusion criteria were age over 18 years and patients with more than 50% of pulmonary involvement in lung CT scan. The patients were called to Baharloo hospital three months after recovery and were examined for cardiac, pulmonary and blood tests. RESULT: Our study included 178 participants with mean age of 55.70, and 50.6% of them were male. Among pulmonary factors in the hospital, 71.9%, 15.7%,1.7%,19.1% and 53.4% had positive GGO, consolidation, reverse halo sign, traction bronchiectasis and vascular enlargement, respectively. After three months follow up, percentage of patients who had reticulation, honeycombing, fibrotic brand and bullae were 12%, 1.1%,8.4% and 0%, respectively. The Mean values of FVC and FEV1 were reported 4.21 and 3.01, respectively. Among Cardiac factors, positive PVC, PAC and mean Pap were decreased after three months. Only Growth in myalgia and Decreased sense of taste were statistically significant. Also, D dimer, UA protein, PMN, Ferritin CRP, PMN, LDH and HB amounts had decreased significantly. CONCLUSION: Our study indicated that in addition to pulmonary changes, rapid damage to other organs and the occurrence of cardiac symptoms and changes in laboratory result were also reported in patients recovered from COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Objective: The prevalence of COVID-19 and its severity have been observed to be on a lower level in underdeveloped countries with poorer standards of hygiene. This disparity may be attributed to the higher seroprevalence of other viral diseases, which can result in the presence of antibodies protective against COVID-19. Two of the widespread diseases in such countries are infection to hepatitis A and E viruses (HAV and HEV). In the present study, we explored the relationship between the level of antibodies against these viruses and the susceptibility to COVID-19. Methods: Ninety patients were studied in two groups of controls and cases, each consisting 45 individuals. The cases were patients with the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and positive RT-PCR test results. The controls were individuals referred to the respiratory triage of Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex and were not demonstrating relevant clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and their RT-PCR test results were negative. Levels of HAV and HEV antibodies were measured and compared in these two groups. Results: The median of HAV antibody level was 13.6 (IQR=11.5-16.9) and 13.2 (IQR =10.7-14.7) in cases and controls, respectively, showing no statistically significant difference (P=0.1). Likewise, the median of HEV antibody level was 6.7 (IQR=5.3-7.1) and 7.1 (IQR=6.3-7.5) in cases and controls, respectively, which again showed no statistically significant difference (P=0.41). Conclusion: The present study was carried out in a region with a relatively high prevalence of HAV and HEV infections. Contrary to our expectations, no statistically significant relationship was observed between the levels of antibodies against these viruses and the susceptibility to COVID-19. Further studies with larger sample sizes and in other countries are needed to come to a definite conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Objective: COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been a reference test for diagnosing a disease since the very beginning of the pandemic. COVID-19 serology tests have also been developed and used to estimate the prevalence of individuals who have already been infected. We aimed to evaluate the performance of serology tests for the diagnosis of patients who had been referred to medical centers with acute symptoms. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 80 individuals suspected of COVID-19 who had been referred to Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran, Iran, were examined. Upper respiratory tract specimens for RT-PCR and blood samples for COVID-19 IgM and IgG antibody level tests were collected and the results were compared. Results: The overall proportion in agreement, the agreement between positive results, and the agreement between negative results when comparing RT-PCR and IgM serology test were 40% (kappa = -0.006, P = 0.9), 32%, and 66.6%, respectively, and when comparing RT-PCR and IgG serology test were 46% (kappa = -0.006, P = 0.94), 43.5%, and 55.5%, respectively. Conclusion: The absence of a gold standard method for the diagnosis of COVID-19 makes it very challenging to determine the true sensitivity and specificity of different methods. The study results revealed no agreement between the two methods; so the RT-PCR test for upper respiratory tract specimen cannot be replaced with COVID-19 serology test for the diagnosis of patients with acute symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]