RESUMO
Introduction The most efficient method of combating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic would be to use effective, safe, and proven vaccines; however, their widespread use has been hampered partly by concerns over possible adverse effects. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine side effects among participants. Methods This was a multicenter, cross-sectional study conducted using a non-probability sampling technique. The duration of the study was nine months, from February 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The study included 900 participants who provided informed consent and had received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Demographic characteristics of participants, such as gender, age, comorbidities, AstraZeneca vaccine with both doses along with booster dose, previous exposure to COVID-19 infection, and the prevalence of any local and systemic side effects following the first and second doses of vaccine, were documented. Results The study findings showed that of the 900 participants, 414 (46.0%) were males and 486 (54.0%) were females; their mean age was 40.72 ± 13.47 years. Among them, 198 (22.0%) had hypertension and 144 (16.0%) had diabetes mellitus. Following the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, pain at the injection site was the most commonly reported side effect in 594 (66.0%) participants. Moreover, swelling at the injection site was the most commonly reported side effect in 522 (58.0%) participants after receiving the second dose of the vaccine. The level of satisfaction showed that the majority of the 648 participants (72.0%) were satisfied with their vaccination. Conclusion This study concluded that pain at the injection site was the most commonly reported side effect, followed by swelling and fever after the first dose of the vaccine. Following the second dose of the vaccine, adverse effects included headache, swelling, and burning at the injection site.
RESUMO
Introduction The most significant element in halting the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic was the availability of reliable and efficient vaccines. Vaccine acceptability is influenced by many factors, including perceptions of the vaccine's safety and side effects. Adverse reactions to vaccines can vary with regard to the type, although they are frequently mild, localized, temporary, and self-limiting. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of side effects experienced by postmenopausal women after receiving the Sinovac vaccine. Methods This multicenter, prospective cross-sectional study was carried out at multiple centers in Karachi, Pakistan. In this study, the non-probability sampling method was used. The study continued from August 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023, for six months. The study comprised 600 postmenopausal women over the age of 50 years who received two doses of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccination. Demographic parameters such as gender, the existence of comorbidities, and local and systemic side effects in postmenopausal women were documented as frequencies and percentages. Age, weight, and duration of comorbidities are expressed as means and standard deviations. Results The study findings showed that the mean age of study participants was 63.93 ± 8.24 years. There were related comorbidities with hypertension and diabetes mellitus in 181 (30.2%) and 40 (6.7%) women, respectively. Fever was the most often reported side effect, with 349 (58.2%) participants reporting it and 198 (56.7%) participants reporting it as mild. After the second dose, 234 (39.5%) participants reported fever as their most frequent adverse effect, and 158 (67.5%) of them reported it was mild. Conclusion This study concluded that the most commonly reported side effects among postmenopausal women were fever, pain, and swelling at the injection site after getting either dose of Sinovac vaccine. These overall side effects were generally mild to moderate in intensity, not life-threatening, and did not require hospitalization, although fever was reported in severe intensity in some cases, particularly after the first dose.
RESUMO
Introduction It has been discovered that low levels of thiamine reserves in the body are related to diabetes mellitus (DM) because thiamine directly influences carbohydrate metabolism. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess several metabolic variables and blood thiamine levels in patients with type 1 and type 2 DM and compare them with those in a control group of healthy individuals. Methods This case-control study was conducted at multiple diabetic outpatient centers in Karachi. A total of 90 participants, who were divided into three groups, each containing 30 individuals, were chosen using a convenient non-probability sampling technique. Group A served as the control group and consisted of healthy, non-diabetic individuals. Groups B and C contained subjects with type 1 and type 2 DM, respectively. Descriptive analysis was reported as mean standard deviation, whereas gender and comorbidities were expressed as frequencies and percentages. The chi-square test and Pearson's correlation coefficient were used to determine the associations of the variables with type 1 DM, type 2 DM, and controls. Results The study results revealed statistically significant differences between controls, type 1 and type 2 DM, in the means of blood glucose levels and all lipid profiles, such as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood sugar (FBS), random blood sugar (RBS), serum thiamine, triglycerides (p < 0.001), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (p = 0.014), and total cholesterol (p = 0.013). Furthermore, it was shown that among the control group, type 1 and type 2 DM, HbA1c, and FBS were insignificantly correlated with thiamine levels, whereas the HbA1c and FBS of the combined diabetic groups were significantly correlated with the thiamine level (r = 0.465, p < 0.001) and (r = 0.360, p = 0.005), respectively, where 'r' is the Pearson correlation coefficient. Additionally, HbA1c and FBS in the combined three groups were significantly correlated with the thiamine level (r = -0.626, p < 0.001) and (r = -0.561, p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion This study concluded that patients with type 1 and type 2 DM had significantly higher levels of FBS, RBS, HbA1c, triglycerides, and total cholesterol than controls. Furthermore, both type 1 and type 2 DM patients' serum thiamine and HDL levels were observed to be considerably lower than those of controls. Additionally, among both types of DM and controls, there was a strong correlation between FBS and HbA1c. Therefore, we recommend that serum thiamine levels be routinely monitored in diabetic patients, and thiamine supplementation should be considered to avoid complications, especially vascular complications of DM.