Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials.

Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been discovered within a very small duration of time as compared to the traditional way for the development of vaccines, which raised the question about the safety and efficacy of the approved vaccines. The purpose of this study is to look at the effectiveness and safety of vaccine platforms against the incidence of COVID-19. The literature search was performed on PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, and clinical trials.gov databases for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 19 February 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement guidelines were followed. Among 284 articles received by keywords, a total of 11 studies were eligible according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (studies in special populations, e.g., pregnant women, paediatric patients, editorials, case reports, review articles, preclinical and in vitro studies) of the study. A total of 247,186 participants were considered for randomisation at baseline, among them, 129,572 (52.42%) were provided with vaccine (Intervention group) and 117,614 (47.58%) with the placebo (Control group). A pooled fold change estimation of 0.19 (95% CI: 0.12-0.31, p < 0.0001) showed significant protection against the incidence of COVID-19 in the vaccines received group versus the placebo group. mRNA based, inactivated vaccines and non-replicating viral vector-based vaccines showed significantly protection against the incidence of COVID-19 compared to placebo with pooled fold change estimation was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06-0.10), 0.20 (95% CI: 0.14-0.29) and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.28-0.46), respectively. Injection site discomfort and fatigue were the most common side effect observed in mRNA, non-replicating viral vector, inactivated, and protein subunit-based vaccines. All the approved vaccines were found safe and efficacious but mRNA-based vaccines were found to be more efficacious against SARS-CoV-2 than other platforms.

Effect of Mahayavanala Roma Kshara and Dhanyaka Gokshura Ghrita in benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Vatastheela is a disease of Mutravahasrotasa, one among the 12 types of Mutraghata disorders elaborated by Sushruta in his seminal work, the Sushruta Samhita. Vatastheela, as described in Ayurveda, closely resembles benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) of modern medicine in its signs and symptoms. It is a senile disorder and chiefly affects individuals above the age of 40 years. The symptoms are those of bladder outflow obstruction, with increased frequency of micturition, dribbling, hesitancy, and the features of chronic urinary retention. Surgical management has been accepted as the standard management but is associated with many disadvantages as well as complications, which may not be acceptable at this age. Conservative management with modern medicines is also not free from side effects. So, in this age-group, there is a need for much safer alternative method of management. In this regard, many works have been carried out and shown that the Ayurvedic approach, using natural medicines, is a far better approach. We carried out a comparative study of Mahayavanala Roma Kshara (MRK) and Dhanyaka Gokshura Ghrita (DGG), which are the compounds prescribed for Mutraghata in Ayurvedic literature. The patients were randomly selected from the OPD and IPD of IPGT and RA hospital, Jamnagar, Gujarat, and divided into two groups. In first group, one (500 mg) capsule of MRK was given twice a day with lukewarm water for 45 days; in second group, 10 gm of DGG was given orally twice a day with lukewarm water for 45 days. DGG showed significantly greater relief in the subjective parameters as per International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) than MRK. However, reduction in the size of the prostate and in the volume of the post-void residual urine was found much better in the MRK group.