Vaccine Side Effects Research Articles

Factors associated with willingness to receive coronavirus disease vaccination during the pandemic: A nationwide survey in Taiwan

Background/purposeVaccination is the most important preventive measure to protect people from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Governments worldwide have prioritized their vaccination policy against COVID-19. However, there is a lack of relevant research on Taiwanese attitudes and considerations toward COVID-19 vaccination. This study aimed to investigate the cognition, preventive behaviors, and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines that influence people's willingness to get vaccinated in Taiwan. MethodsFrom October 1 to 31, 2021, a computer-assisted telephone interview system was used to randomly select Taiwanese people to investigate their COVID-19 preventive behaviors, knowledge, and willingness to be vaccinated. ResultsWe included 2000 participants of whom 96.45% showed vaccination willingness. The overall mean age and knowledge scores were 48.6 years and 5.78, respectively. All of the participants chose to wear masks, and 80% chose to be vaccinated to prevent COVID-19. Compared with the non-willing vaccination participants, those with younger ages, higher incomes, and higher knowledge scores regarding masks and vaccination were more likely to be vaccinated. Furthermore, apprehensions about vaccine side effects and negative news about COVID-19 vaccines were the major reasons for vaccination hesitancy. ConclusionTo improve people's willingness to get vaccinated, the government should strive to deliver correct knowledge and refute inappropriate negative information about COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, recommendation by physicians was an important factor for older individuals to decide on receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and policies could be implemented from this aspect.

Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among Iranian healthcare workers: a retrospective cohort study.

This study assessed the incidence and severity of side effects associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination among healthcare workers registered with the Medical Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on the healthcare workers focusing on the side-effects of COVID-19 vaccines from March to June 2021. Data were collected using online questionnaires. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between side effects of the vaccines and demographic variables, comorbidities, vaccine type, and history of COVID-19. Out of 42,018 people who were included, 55.85% reported at least one side effect after receiving the first vaccine dose. 4.59% of those with side effects sought diagnostic intervention or were referred to treatment centers. Multivariable logistic regression indicated that being a woman, higher education, having a history of COVID-19 infection, and having comorbidities increased the risk of side effects. The AstraZeneca vaccine significantly increased the risk of side effects compared to the Sputnik vaccine, while the Sinopharm vaccine decreased this risk. The risk of developing a side effect decreased with age. The risk of moderate and severe side effects was significantly associated with gender, younger age, comorbidities, and a history of COVID-19 infection. Moderate and severe side effects were less reported by those who received the Sinopharm vaccine. Clinical complications after COVID-19 vaccination, directly or indirectly caused by the vaccines, are common. However, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines greatly outweigh the risk of reversible side effects, especially among the high-risk population.

Side effects of CoronaVac® COVID-19 vaccination: Investigation in North Jakarta district public health center communities in Indonesia

BackgroundThe decreasing prevalence of COVID-19 has highlighted the value of vaccinations. CoronaVac® vaccine was one of the most widely used vaccines in Indonesia, in other Southeast Asian countries, as well as in Latin America. However, to date the safety and side effect profiles of CoronaVac® vaccine among the Indonesian population have not been reported. ObjectiveIn this study, the CoronaVac® safety profiles were determined in a community of a public health center in North Jakarta, Indonesia. MethodThis is a descriptive cross-sectional questionnaire-based study on vaccine side effects as recorded in the yellow form (MESO). Patients (n = 300) who received CoronaVac® vaccinations between July and August 2021 were enrolled. SPSS was used to analyze the descriptive data. ResultsMost respondents were women (72.7 %) between the ages of 17 and 21 years. A significantly (p = 0.009) positive correlation was established between the vaccine side effects (namely pain at the injection site) with the female gender. Other side effects such as fatigue (p = 0.034) and headache (p < 0.001) were also correlated with disease comorbidity. ConclusionOverall, the side effects following the first and the second doses were generally mild and included fever, pain in the injection area, fatigue, headache, drowsiness, diarrhea, cough, and nausea. Regarding vaccine efficacy, CoronaVac® confers better protection following the second dose administration where the percentage of respondents affected with COVID-19 (26.7 %) decreased to only 20.3 % following the second dose.

Vaccines and the Eye: Current Understanding of the Molecular and Immunological Effects of Vaccination on the Eye.

Vaccination is a public health cornerstone that protects against numerous infectious diseases. Despite its benefits, immunization implications on ocular health warrant thorough investigation, particularly in the context of vaccine-induced ocular inflammation. This review aimed to elucidate the complex interplay between vaccination and the eye, focusing on the molecular and immunological pathways implicated in vaccine-associated ocular adverse effects. Through an in-depth analysis of recent advancements and the existing literature, we explored various mechanisms of vaccine-induced ocular inflammation, such as direct infection by live attenuated vaccines, immune complex formation, adjuvant-induced autoimmunity, molecular mimicry, hypersensitivity reactions, PEG-induced allergic reactions, Type 1 IFN activation, free extracellular RNA, and specific components. We further examined the specific ocular conditions associated with vaccination, such as uveitis, optic neuritis, and retinitis, and discussed the potential impact of novel vaccines, including those against SARS-CoV-2. This review sheds light on the intricate relationships between vaccination, the immune system, and ocular tissues, offering insights into informed discussions and future research directions aimed at optimizing vaccine safety and ophthalmological care. Our analysis underscores the importance of vigilance and further research to understand and mitigate the ocular side effects of vaccines, thereby ensuring the continued success of vaccination programs, while preserving ocular health.

The Prevalence and Determinants of Hesitancy for Regular COVID-19 Vaccination among Primary Healthcare Patients with Asthma or COPD in Greece: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The emergence of novel coronavirus mutations and signs of the waning immunity provided by COVID-19 vaccines underscore the importance of regular vaccination. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of regular COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and the factors that influence it among patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who visited primary care centers. The cross-sectional study was conducted in six primary healthcare centers in Crete, Greece (October-December 2023). Participants completed a questionnaire, which included questions about socio-demographic characteristics, health status, previous COVID-19 booster vaccination, attitudes, and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify the factors that influenced vaccine hesitancy. Of the 264 participants, 65% exhibited hesitancy towards COVID-19 booster vaccination. Female gender, middle age, lower educational attainment, depression diagnosis, concerns about vaccine side effects, lack of confidence in vaccine efficacy, and reliance on media information were positively associated to vaccine hesitancy. Conversely, those having a cardiovascular disease or type 2 diabetes, those generally adhering to the recommendations of the treating physician, and those having previously received the flu vaccine or more than three COVID-19 vaccine doses were positively associated with regular COVID-19 vaccinations. Consequently, our findings could help develop strategies that could potentially reduce regular vaccination hesitancy among patients with asthma or COPD.

Systemic and cutaneous side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in Iraq, A cross-sectional study

BackgroundCoronavirus disease has recently emerged as a major health concern. The rapid development of vaccines for this infection raises concerns regarding its efficacy and safety. These concerns may lead to the refusal of vaccination, which will only open room for further pandemic flare-ups.The aim of this study was to assess the cutaneous and systemic side effects of COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Sinopharm). MethodsA cross-sectional descriptive analytical study included 677 participants, both vaccinated and non-vaccinated, the questionnaire was distributed online through Google form. Questions about vaccine preference, awareness, fear and side effects of vaccination. Three types of vaccines were used in Iraq (Pfizer/BioNTech, Oxford/AstraZeneca, and Sinopharm) and their side effects were compared. ResultsThe three different vaccines have shown variable side effects. The major source of knowledge regarding vaccination was social media (44.5 %). ConclusionPfizer/BioNTech vaccine was the most preferred vaccine in this study. Refusal to vaccinate was mainly attributed to fear of thromboembolic complications. Most of the side effects were mild to moderate among the participants. The most prevalent side effects were pain at the site of injection, tenderness and exhaustion. While the most common cutaneous side effects were redness at site of injection, urticaria and bluish discoloration of the skin respectively.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination by Gender and Age in a Sample of Black Adults in Chicago.

Although vaccine behaviors differ greatly by gender and age, few studies have examined vaccination at the intersection of gender and age within the Black community. We examined COVID-19 vaccination by gender and age using a survey of over 500 Black adults in Chicago, Illinois, fielded from September 2021 to March 2022. Although 54% had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine, the proportion vaccinated was considerably lower for Black men (28%) and women (37%) under 40 years old than Black men (92%) and women (86%) over 40 years (p < .001). Concern about vaccine side effects was the most reported barrier for unvaccinated women (56%) and men (38%) under 40 years. Our results suggest that targeted efforts to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the Black community in Chicago after the initial rollout should have focused on young adults, particularly young Black men, with emphasis on addressing concern about vaccine side effects.

Perceptions of dengue risk and acceptability of a dengue vaccine in residents of Puerto Rico

ABSTRACT Dengvaxia is the first dengue vaccine recommended in the United States (U.S.). It is recommended for children aged 9–16 y with laboratory-confirmed previous dengue infection and living in areas where dengue is endemic. We conducted focus groups with parents and in-depth interviews with key informants (i.e. practicing pediatricians, physicians from immunization clinics, university researchers, and school officials) in Puerto Rico (P.R.) to examine acceptability, barriers, and motivators to vaccinate with Dengvaxia. We also carried out informal meetings and semi-structured interviews to evaluate key messages and educational materials with pediatricians and parents. Barriers to vaccination included lack of information, distrust toward new vaccines, vaccine side effects and risks, and high cost of/lack of insurance coverage for laboratory tests and vaccines. Motivators included clear information about the vaccine, a desire to prevent future dengue infections, the experience of a previous dengue infection or awareness of dengue fatality, vaccine and laboratory tests covered by health insurance, availability of rapid test results and vaccine appointments. School officials and parents agreed parents would pay a deductible of $5–20 for Dengvaxia. For vaccine information dissemination, parents preferred an educational campaign through traditional media and social media, and one-on-one counseling of parents by healthcare providers. Education about this vaccine to healthcare providers will help them answer parents’ questions. Dengvaxia acceptability in P.R. will increase by addressing motivators and barriers to vaccination and by disseminating vaccine information in plain language through spokespersons from health institutions in P.R.

Short-term side effects of BNT162b2 vaccine in primary care settings in Qatar: a retrospective study.

Despite the established effectiveness of the BNT162b2 Vaccine, the novel technology demands careful safety monitoring. While global studies have explored its safety, local data remains limited and exhibits some variability. This study investigated short-term side effects among BNT162b2 vaccinated individuals in Qatar. A retrospective analysis was conducted using data extracted from the electronic health records of individuals aged 18 or older across 8 primary health centers who received either the first or second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine during the period from December 23, 2020, to April 24, 2021. The proportions of individuals experiencing short-term side effects after each dose were calculated. Logistic regression and log binomial regression analyses were used to explore associations with the side effects. Among 7,764 participants, 5,489 received the first dose and 2,275 the second, with similar demographics between the groups. After the first dose, 5.5% reported at least one local side effect, compared to 3.9% after the second, with a 1.4 times higher incidence after the first dose (RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.14-1.75) compared to the second. Systemic side effects after the second dose were 2.6 times more common than after the first (RR 2.6, 95% CI 2.15-3.14). Gender, nationality, history of prior COVID-19 infection, and obesity were significantly associated with side effects after the first dose, while age, gender, and nationality, were significant factors after the second dose. The rates of side effects following the BNT162b2 vaccine in Qatar were relatively low, with age, gender, nationality, previous infection, and obesity identified as significant predictors. These results emphasize the need for tailored vaccination strategies and contributes valuable insights for evidence-based decision-making in ongoing and future vaccination campaigns.

Comparison of T cells mediated immunity and side effects of mRNA vaccine and conventional COVID-19 vaccines administrated in Jordan

ABSTRACT Various COVID-19 vaccines can affect the immune system. Discrepancies have been noted in immune system characteristics, such as T-lymphocyte levels, between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. This study investigates the variations in immune responses among the four administered COVID-19 vaccines, influencing factors, and clinical outcomes in Jordan. A total of 350 adults, who were at least two doses vaccinated, were interviewed and blood samples were collected for subsequent laboratory analyses. The study involved the quantification of T-cells specifically targeting anti-SARS CoV-2 using Flow cytometry analysis. BNT162b2 (Pfizer) recipients displayed significantly higher CD3+/CD4+ T-helper cell responses (90.84%, 87.46% – 94.22%) compared to non-Pfizer-BioNTech recipients {BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm) and Sputnik V (Gamaleya Research Institute), then ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca)} (83.62%, 77.91% − 89.33%). The CD3+/CD8+ (T cytotoxic) level was notably elevated in non-Pfizer-BioNTech recipients {Sinopharm and Sputnik V then ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 AstraZeneca (73.94%, 69.38% − 78.49%) compared to BNT162b2 (Pfizer) recipients (58.26%, 53.07% − 63.44%). The CD3+ (T-cells) level showed no significant difference between BNT162b2 recipients (73.74%) and non-Pfizer-BioNTech recipients (77.83%), with both types generating T-cells. Comparing two doses of non-Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines with the third dose of BNT162b2 recipients (Pfizer), no difference in the type of immune reaction was observed, with non-Pfizer-BioNTech recipients still stimulating endogenous pathways like cell-mediated cytotoxic effects for cells. All COVID-19 vaccines administered in Jordan were effective, with respect to the total number of T cells. Non-Pfizer-BioNTech had higher in toxic T-cells and Pfizer-BioNTech was higher in helper T-cells that stimulate plasma cells to produce antibodies.

Self-reported side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among health professions students in India.

Studies focusing on the safety and common side effects of vaccines play a crucial role in enhancing public acceptance of vaccination. Research is scarce regarding the usage of COVID-19 vaccines and the side effects experienced by health professions students in India and other countries. This study aimed to document self-reported side effects associated with COVID-19 vaccination among medical and dental students of six medical and dental colleges and teaching hospitals in four states (Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and West Bengal) of India. A cross-sectional survey using purposive sampling of medical and dental students was conducted from 26 April to 26 May 2021. Data was collected using a Google Forms questionnaire capturing information regarding receiving COVID-19 vaccines, side effects and symptoms, onset and duration of symptoms, use of treatment to alleviate symptoms, awareness of haematologic risks associated with vaccination, and side effects from previous (non-COVID-19) vaccinations. The majority (94.5%) of participants received both doses of the Covishield/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Among participants (n=492), 45.3% (n=223) reported one or more side effects. The most frequently reported side effects were soreness of the injected arm (80.3%), tiredness (78.5%), fever (71.3%), headache (64.1%), and hypersomnia (58.7%). The two most common severe symptoms were fever (14.8%) and headache (13%). Most side effects appeared on the day of vaccination: soreness of the injection site (57%), fever (43.1%), and tiredness (42.6%). Most reported symptoms persisted for one to three days-soreness of the injection site (53%), fever (47.1%), and headache (42.6%). Logistic regression showed that women were almost 85% less likely to report side effects. The study's findings corroborate the safety of the Covishield/AstraZeneca vaccine's first dose, evidenced by the relatively minor and transient nature of the side effects. However, the study underscores the necessity for ongoing research to assess the long-term impacts of COVID-19 vaccines, especially in the context of booster doses, thereby contributing to the global understanding of vaccine safety and efficacy.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Associated Factors among Adults and Adolescents Attending COVID-19 Vaccination Centre of South India-A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction: Challenges related to the acceptance and refusal of COVID-19 vaccination (vaccine hesitancy)emerged as a significant problem worldwide.Objectives: 1. To study socio-demographic profile of the study participants.2.To assess association betweensociodemographic characteristics and vaccine hesitancy among study participants.3. To find out the reasons for vaccination hesitancy among study participants.Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted at COVID-19 vaccination centre, in South India. Studyparticipants included were subjects who were due for COVID-19 vaccine. Total sample size was 385.Data wascollected by interview technique.Results: Majority,311(80.8%) of the respondents were urban residents and were in 18-30 age group. Malerespondents were higher 227, (59.0%) than female,158(41.0%). Regarding reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, majority, 107 (27.8%) reported they were unaware of vaccination schedule followed by 97 (25.2%) not getting time to go for vaccination and 49 (12.7%) respondents reported fear of side effects of COVID-19 vaccine. We found statistically significant association between COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and socio-demographic variables like their residence, age, gender, type of family, educational level, marital status and co-morbidity. Conclusion: Regardless of the source of vaccine hesitancy, interventions to encourage vaccination by simplifying messages and emphasizing benefits can be effective.

Perceptions about the COVID-19 disease and the vaccination of those arriving at a vaccination center are correlated with medical public health services management

&lt;b&gt;Background:&lt;/b&gt; Perceptions of COVID-19 and vaccination depend on personal beliefs, experiences, and trust in health authorities’ information. Cultural and social factors also influence perceptions. Effective government messaging can minimize barriers to vaccination.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;b&gt;Methodology:&lt;/b&gt; This cross-sectional research examines socio-demographic parameters related to risk factors, conducted using questionnaires at the vaccination center of Hippokrateio General Hospital of Athens, Greece (n=167), in the last quarter of 2022. Participants were asked to answer questions regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, a measurement tool for assessing good health status developed by the World Health Organization. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS v26.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;b&gt;Results:&lt;/b&gt; The study found that women perceive vaccines to cause more harm than men, with younger individuals viewing the infection as harmless. Educational level also influences vaccine side effects and long-term harm. Perceptions of COVID-19 differ based on vaccination status.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;b&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/b&gt; This research confirms the link between socio-demographic variables and pandemic severity perception, emphasizing the importance of correlated with medical public health services management in enhancing communication strategies and creating effective vaccination campaigns.

Multicentric observational study of the possible side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine in relation to absorbable thread insertion.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs in Europe began in December 2020, and as the number of vaccinated people increased, more information emerged about the possible side effects of vaccines. Recently, some reports appeared around the association of adverse reactions following soft-tissue filler injections and the COVID-19 vaccines. This fact raised the concerns of esthetic practitioners regarding the possibility of the association of the COVID-19 vaccine and adverse effects in other esthetic treatments. Many of us wonder if botox injection, biostimulation, or other procedure could trigger the same or other adverse reactions after the COVID-19 vaccination. Many colleagues postpone esthetic treatments, canceling the appointments. The objective of our investigation was to understand if any adverse reactions have been observed in the patients who underwent threads implantation before and after the vaccination. Four medical centers have collected the data of the patients treated with absorbable threads before the vaccination and after vaccination for COVID-19. The dossiers of 190 patients with a mean age of 50.4 years were evaluated. Three questionnaires were administered 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after thread implantation. There were no adverse reactions in the groups of patients under monitoring. Only one patient presented signs of inflammation and infection, but they are more probably attributable to the contamination during thread insertion. No patients treated with absorbable threads developed adverse events in relation to the COVID-19 vaccine. The only case of inflammation is attributable probably to the contamination of the thread during the procedure.

Unveiling parental perspectives: COVID-19 vaccination for children in India.

Irrespective of the availability of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine and its success rate in adults, administering vaccines to children remains a challenge for healthcare workers. Children's vaccine hesitancy among parents remains substantial and is exacerbated due to misleading information. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the hesitancy of parents and their concern about the vaccination and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in their children. A cross-sectional web-based and offline survey comprised of questions about the demographic of children, the status of COVID-19 infection, its severity, vaccination status, sources of information, willingness, concerns and attitude of parents to vaccinate their children against the COVID-19 virus, was conducted. Overall, 846 responses from parents fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed by GraphPad Prism 5. Out of the 846 responses, 51.2% (n = 433) of children were vaccinated against COVID-19. Out of vaccinated children (51.2%), 60.3% (n = 261) had experienced adverse events. Around 21% (n = 98) of children had a history of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Among the infected children, 14.3% were asymptomatic and 85.7% had symptoms. Approximately 8% of children had comorbidities, with chronic lung diseases and asthma being the most common. Among the 846 participating parents, 59.5% were mothers and the remaining 40.5% were fathers. A total of 2.7% and 22.2% of parents were found hesitant to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to their children aged 15-18 years and below 15 years, respectively. Among hesitant parents, mothers were found slightly more hesitant as compared to fathers. Also, 35.5% of parents were found hesitant about their own COVID-19 vaccination. Furthermore, the concern for COVID-19 vaccine unwillingness among parents is that a child has already achieved natural immunity after COVID-19 infections (76.8%) followed by vaccine safety and its side effects. The motivating factors to convince parents for their children's COVID-19 vaccination were if their doctors recommend it, followed by detailed information on vaccine side effects and efficacy in children. The most trusted source of information for the parents was found to be the healthcare workers. These results suggest that data and reviews regarding the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine readily available in the public domain could serve as a highly effective strategy for promoting and implementing widespread vaccination among children. By providing easily accessible and comprehensive information, public health authorities can address parental concerns, dispel misconceptions and foster a greater sense of trust in the vaccination process.

Side effects of COVID-19 vaccines in paediatric patients: a review systematic and meta-analysis protocol

IntroductionThe paediatric population represents a quarter of the world’s population, and like adult patients, they have also suffered immeasurably from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Immunisation is an effective strategy for reducing...

School Teachers' Perceptions of Adolescent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination: A Systematic Review.

School nurses are uniquely positioned to educate students about immunizations, including human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, but schools are often without a nurse for different reasons. In lieu of nurses, teachers who closely interact with students and are traditionally well-trusted by parents may be able to communicate about HPV vaccination, alleviating parental vaccine hesitancy. This systematic review explores school teachers' perspectives on adolescent HPV vaccination and factors influencing their willingness to make vaccine recommendations. We searched three databases with appropriate medical subject headings and keywords to identify relevant studies. We reviewed fifteen studies and provided an extensive summary and a comparison of the results across the studies. Teachers had low to moderate levels of HPV knowledge with low self-efficacy to counsel parents about the HPV vaccine and expressed concerns about the vaccine condoning adolescent sexual activity, vaccine side effects, and parental disapproval. Nonetheless, some teachers showed interest in learning about vaccine effectiveness in preventing HPV-associated cancers and wanted guidance on vaccine communication with parents, viewing schools as adequate venues to promote and deliver HPV vaccines. Schools should consider educating teachers on HPV and HPV vaccination, with a focus on effective vaccine communication practices to increase adolescent HPV vaccine uptake.

COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccination does not affect basal sex hormone levels (follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, estradiol) in reproductive-age women.

People vaccinated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 [SARS-CoV-2]) mRNA vaccine have reported experiencing various adverse effects. For instance, reproductive-age women have presented with complaints of abnormal uterine bleeding or menstrual cycle changes. We speculated that differences in basal sex hormone levels before and after vaccination may be present in women who experienced irregular bleeding or menstrual cycle changes; thus, this study aimed to investigate the differences in basal sex hormone levels of women before and after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. This retrospective study included patients who received SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines between January 2021 and February 2022 at a single center. In an outpatient setting, patients were queried regarding their menstrual cycle, the date of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, vaccination type, and vaccination side effects. Differences in basal hormone levels (menstrual cycle days 2-3, follicle-stimulating hormone [FSH], luteinizing hormone [LH], and estradiol) before and after vaccination were compared. Among the 326 patients, patients with no laboratory records of the hormones were excluded. The median time interval between SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and the laboratory test day was 79 days (interquartile range, 44 to 127). A comparative analysis of these hormones before and after vaccination revealed no significant differences. Subgroup analyses based on age and reported adverse events also found no statistically significant differences. This study showed no significant differences in basal hormone levels (FSH, LH, and estradiol) before and after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.

Monitoring Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine Side Effects in Faridpur, Bangladesh: A Prospective Study

The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is effective in preventing illness and death from COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in a population in Faridpur, Bangladesh. The study population included individuals who received both doses of the vaccine from Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical College Hospital in Faridpur. We followed up with these individuals via phone interviews one week and one month after each vaccination to gather information about side effects. We found that the overall incidence of systemic and injection site side effects after the first and second doses was 36.5% and 34.7%, and 68.2% and 61.3%, respectively, among the 2256 studies population. The most common systemic side effects were fatigue, fever, and muscle pain, while the most common injection site symptoms were tenderness, pain, and redness. These side effects generally resolve within 24-72 hours after vaccination. Only a small percentage of individuals (1.3% after the first dose and 0.5% after the second dose) sought medical attention for their side effects. We also found that individuals with a history of chronic disease and those who had a history of COVID-19 symptoms had a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing side effects. In conclusion, the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was generally safe in this population, with a low incidence of side effects requiring medical attention. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Med. Coll. J. 2024;3(1):16-21

Evaluating COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among parents in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review examining attitudes, hesitancy, and intentions.

The COVID-19 pandemic, affecting adults and children equally, has caused significant disruption to countries worldwide, including Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, the fast preventative measures and mass vaccine enrollment were vital to contain the devastating impact of the pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy, especially among parents toward vaccinating their children, was a significant obstacle to vaccine uptake. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines to assess parental willingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19, determine the key determinants influencing such intention and attitudes, and underline the significant concerns and misconceptions regarding the vaccine among parents. The Joanne Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies was used to assess included studies for risk of bias. Twenty-three studies were included in this systematic review, representing a total of 20,926 participants, with over 66% of them were female. Over 37% of the participants were willing to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. Parents' age, gender, level of education, and income were the main determinants of their intention to vaccinate their children. The parents' main concerns were the potential vaccine side effects, safety, and efficacy. Major misconceptions about the COVID-19 vaccine included it being dangerous to children and that children are at lower risk of severe infection; hence, vaccines were not needed. This seminal review provides insights to public health policymakers, which should be considered and taken together in light of other studies addressing parental vaccine hesitancy.